Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement on the strike of wireless operators; how many ships are now at sea without wireless operators; how many are now at sea without the regulation number of wireless operators; and whether he will consider taking some action with a view to ending the dispute?

Lord APSLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will recommend that an inquiry be held with a view to reaching a settlement of the shipowners' and wireless operators' dispute?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he is unable to say how many ships are at present actually at sea without wireless operators or without the full number required by the rules. Since 26th November last, 1,258 British ships have sailed from the United Kingdom ports without wireless operators. Figures as to the number of ships whose wireless complement is incomplete are not at present available. As regards the last part of this question and the question of my Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Islington (Mr. Montague) and Edgehill (Mr. Hayes).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This question was really put in the hope that there would be something to report
of progress made. Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the negotiations that are pending, and if the parties have yet been called together, as was mentioned yesterday in the answer?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, I said yesterday that a communication was addressed yesterday to the employers which contained a copy of certain alternative proposals made by the Federation. We have not yet got a reply, but we are expecting one at a very early date, possibly either to-night or to-morrow, and after that we hope to arrange a joint conference. I am afraid I cannot carry the matter any further at this moment.

Lord APSLEY: Should the Government decide to grant an inquiry in this matter, will they take into consideration the rather important question of requiring weather reports from all ships sailing under the British flag?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of these questions.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the wireless operators' trade dispute is interfering with the proper observance of the rules and regulations laid down under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if so, what steps does he propose taking to bring the dispute to an end?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Islington (Mr. Montagu) and Moss Side (Mr. Hurst).

Mr. AMMON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of calls for help picked up by British and foreign ships, respectively, during the period of stormy weather in the month of January last?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. AMMON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the
British schooner "Spencer Lake" was reported abandoned during last month; and whether the vessel was equipped with wireless apparatus and competent operators on board?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The British schooner "Spencer Lake," 148 tons register, was registered in Newfoundland, and did not come within the operation of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. I am not aware whether she carried wireless apparatus and operators.

Mr. AMMON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steamships "Antinoe" and "Laristan," reported in distress with loss of life about the 26th and 27th January last, were equipped with wireless apparatus; and whether competent operators were on board?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The steamships "Antinoe" and "Laristan" were equipped with wireless telegraphy apparatus, and carried fully-qualified operators.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, failing a speedy settlement of the marine wireless dispute, he proposes to waive the Regulations under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, indefinitely, or whether he will fix a time limit in order that the Act shall not be rendered abortive?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot undertake to answer the hypothetical question which the hon. Member puts to me, and I sincerely hope that a settlement will be reached.

Mr. SNELL: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many special permits or clearances have been given to ships enabling them to proceed to sea without fully complying with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, since 26th November last; how many of these were passenger ships; and the total number of lives, passengers and crews involved?

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many special permits or clearances have been given to ships enabling them to proceed to sea
without fully complying with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, since 25th November last; how many of these were passenger ships; and the total number of lives, passengers and crews, involved?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships have sailed from British ports during the last three months without complying with the Act of 1919 as regards the carrying of certificated wireless operators; and if it is intended to introduce legislation to indemnify the owners and masters from the consequences of their action?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of British ships which have sailed from United Kingdom ports without wireless operators from the 26th November to the 6th February is 1,258, of which 87 are passenger ships. I am unable to give the total number passengers and crews on board these ships. It is not proposed to introduce legislation to indemnify the owners and masters of the ships in question.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that the Act of Parliament imposes penalties on master and owner if a ship sails without having complied with the Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think I am called upon to express a legal opinion on the construction of the Act.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state under what. Section of the Act the Regulations are now being waived?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the legal action of the Government is to be challenged, that must be done in the courts of law, which alone can pronounce an authoritative decision on the question of law.

Mr. MORRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman now power to dispense with the requirement that ships should sail with wireless operators on board?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is asking the same question in another form.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any shipowners, or their representatives, were informed prior to 26th November,
1925, that in the event of a dispute with wireless operators arising proceedings would not be taken against the shipowners for non-compliance with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1019?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was approached by the shipowners to give such information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, certainly not. I have received no representation from the shipowners prior to this dispute, and I should certainly not give them that information.

Mr. HAYES: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances in connection with the sinking of the s.s. "Laristan" in mid-Atlantic; how many lives were involved and how many lost; whether the "Laristan" carried a full complement of wireless operators; whether any British ships were in the vicinity, and what was the distance from the "Laristan" of each ship; whether each ship carried wireless operators, and how many picked up the "Laristan's" distress call; whether any failed to pick up the distress call and, if so, what was the reason; and whether he will take immediate steps to institute a public inquiry into the loss of the "Laristan"?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been drawn to the circumstances of the sinking of the steamship "Laristan" in the Atlantic. Six members of the crew of 30 were saved. The ship carried one certificated wireless operator as required by the Wireless Telegraphy Rules. Particulars of the British ships in the neighbourhood at the time cannot at present be given. A formal inquiry into the loss of the vessel is being ordered, at which all relevant circumstances will be investigated.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that passengers leaving Southampton for Guernsey on 23rd December by the cross-Channel service were not warned that the vessel did not carry a wireless operator; and whether he will take disciplinary action?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a passenger leaving Guernsey for Southampton on 27th January by the cross-Channel service was not warned that the vessel did not carry a, wireless operator; and whether he will take disciplinary action?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Inquiry has been made into this matter. The Board have impressed upon owners the necessity of warning passengers when no wireless operator is carried, and every effort is made by the Southern Railway to do this. It is, however, very difficult to ensure in the case of these cross-Channel trips that every passenger is warned, as the steamer is at sea within half-an-hour of the arrival of the train alongside.

Mr. KENNEDY: 24.
also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Press reports on 1st February regarding the sinking of the Dutch vessel "Alkaid" off Newfoundland; will he make inquiries whether any British ships were in the vicinity; whether they picked up her distress call; and, if not, why not?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to the reports concerning the sinking of the Dutch steamship "Alkaid" off Newfoundland on 1st February. The crew were rescued by the German steamship "Westphalia." Information is not available as to the British ships in the neighbourhood at the time, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by instituting special inquiries now.

Mr. MACKINDER: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the distress in mid-Atlantic of the British steamer "Errington Court"; if not, will he make inquiries; whether the "Errington Court" fully complied with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; if not, in what respect did she not; whether the Board of Trade granted an exemption; what was the nature of the exemption; whether any British ships were in the vicinity of the "Errington Court"; what distance each ship was from her; whether any British ship picked up her distress call; if not, will he explain why; and what was the distance
between the "Errington Court" and the Norwegian steamer "Hada," at the time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The steamship "Errington Court" sailed without a wireless operator. My attention has been called to the message sent on her behalf by the Norwegian steamship "Hada" on 28th January, to the effect that the steering gear was out of order and was being temporarily repaired. No further information has been received. It is not known whether any other British ships were in the vicinity of the "Errington Court," nor is any information available as to the distance between the "Erring-ton Court" and the Norwegian ship "Hada" at the time when messages were exchanged between the two ships. As, however, the message was presumably sent by flags or morse lamp signals the vessels must have been fairly close. The message in question cannot be properly described as a distress call, as had the "Errington Court" been in need of assistance, she would, presumably, have asked the other vessel to stand by or send help.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not worth while making inquiries as to whether British ships were in the vicinity when distress calls were sent out?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I really do not see what value that would he, nor do I see how the inquiry could be conducted. A wireless call may be received by a very large number of ships. It would be quite impossible to plot out on a chart, by deductive evidence, where particular ships were at any particular time.

Mr. MORRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the Board of Trade granted an exemption?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have answered that. There is no dispute about this. As announced last Session, the Government decided, following the precedent of previous Governments, that where a vessel could not comply with the Regulations owing to a strike, the vessel would not be detained.

Mr. MORRIS: What authority has the President to grant exemption? Would not that be a gross violation of the Statute of 1919?

Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the widespread anxiety there is among the public as to the lack of wireless operators; and does he not think that the Government should safeguard the lives of the people?

Mr. HAYES: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "Petworth" was recently disabled in the Bay of Biscay; whether the Board of Trade permitted her to leave Liverpool for Tenerife without a wireless operator; whether he is aware that her wireless installation had to be worked by an incompetent deck officer; whether this officer was able to make the proper signals; what was the nature of the exemption given with respect to wireless; and under what Statute was that exemption given?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Reports have been received that the British steamer "Petworth" was disabled with engine trouble on the 29th January. Distress messages were sent out, and on the morning of 30th January the steamship "Ariosto" was standing by. Later the services of a tug were obtained, and the "Petworth" was towed into Falmouth, where she arrived on 3rd February. The vessel had sailed from Liverpool on the 24th January without a certificated operator. From information which I have received from the General Post Office, it would appear that the ship's transmission was not good, and she could not receive messages or answer inquiries. Assistance, however, was, in fact, obtained in response to her Wrieless calls. No formal certificate of exemption is given in these cases, but when the sole cause of a vessel being without an operator is the refusal of operators to sail owing to the strike, the vessel is not detained.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely what was the nature of the exemption, and under what Statute was the exemption given?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered that question.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
has received any reports regarding the distress of the Norwegian steamer "Johanne Dybwad," in latitude 45 50 N., longitude 37 20 W.; if not, will he make inquiries; whether any British ships were in the vicinity; whether any of them picked up her distress call; and, if not, will he explain why?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to the case of the loss of the Norwegian steamship "Johanne Dybwad," on 2nd February. The crew were rescued by the Belgian steamship "Arminco." The British steamship "Gloxinia" appears to have received messages in connection with this case, but I have no information as to whether any other British ships were in the vicinity.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the permission of the Board of Trade for ships to sail without wireless operators is to continue indefinitely?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No one can desire the indefinite continuance of the present position, but it would be better not to attempt to make any statements as to future action while negotiations are proceeding.

STEAMSHIP "OLYMPIC."

Mr. SNELL: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the distress call alleged to have been sent out by the steamship "Olympic," and whether he will inform the House of all the particulars in his possession?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen the reports in the press as to a distress call stated to have been sent out by the steamship "Olympic." It appears to have been reported by an American amateur station. I have no information as to the origin of the call, but it was not sent out by the British ship of that name.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "ANTINOE."

Mr. WINDSOR: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give full details of the wreck of the British steamer "Antinoe"; whether any British ships were in the vicinity of the "Antinoe" at the time she sent out the distress call; if so, what distance was each ship from the "Antinoe"; whether
any of them picked up the "Antinoe's" distress call and, if not, what was the reason; whether he will state the distance between the American liner "President Roosevelt" and the "Antinoe" at that time; the number of persons aboard the "Antinoe"; and whether the Board of Trade will order an inquiry into the loss of this ship?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A formal investigation will be held into the loss of the steamship "Antinoe," and all relevant circumstances will be inquired into.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

APPLICATIONS FOR INQUIRIES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications had been received up to the last day of January for an inquiry under the scheme for the safeguarding of industries; and the number of applications that have been refused?

Mr. REMER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for inquiries have been received under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; how many Committees have been set up; and how many have reported?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of definite applications made under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure up to date is 34. Of these, 13 have been rejected, as not disclosing a prima facie case, without reference to a Committee of Enquiry. Nine committees have been appointed to consider 11 applications; and reports have been received and published in respect of nine of such applications. One application has been withdrawn. The others are either still under consideration or in abeyance. As I have previously stated in this House, I think it is expedient to follow the practice under the original Safeguarding of Industries Act that information should not be given about any particular application unless and until it is referred to a Committee.

Mr. REMER: In the case of those applications rejected, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give a reason as to why they have been rejected?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will give the general reason that they did not comply with the terms of the scheme.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases it is impossible for the people to obtain the information required by the Board of Trade?

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by the expression "in abeyance," used in his answer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Either that the application is waiting or has been temporarily withdrawn pending the obtaining of further information.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has refused a good many applications on the ground that they are not substantial industries, and will he define what is a substantial industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: No, I do not think that would be convenient. I think a substantial industry is one which most of us can recognise when we see it, but I think it would be very unwise, and not to the interests of any industry, that a very hard and fast line should be drawn.

WRAPPING PAPER.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the promised Measures for the safeguarding of wrapping paper will be introduced?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), a copy of which I am sending him.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LIMITED COMPANIES (BONUS SHARES).

Mr. FORREST: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of the companies, distinguishing them by industries, which have created bonus shares since 1916?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Whenever a company limited by shares makes any allotment of its shares the company must within one, month file with the
Registrar of Companies a return of the allotments, but a company is not required to indicate what shares have been issued as bonus shares. In these Circumstances it is not possible to supply the information asked for.

PROHIBITED IMPORTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. FORREST: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries which prohibit either by tariffs or in practice the importation of specific articles; and in each case what these articles are?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will arrange to have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible a statement giving the desired information, so far as it is available. The preparation of the statement will, however, take some little time.

GENERAL TEXTILE DUTIES (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Colonel ENGLAND: 14.
asked the President of the Beard of Trade what increases have been made in foreign countries in general textile duties during the last year, indicating the amount in each case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: To answer this question exhaustively would involve a very large amount of labour, and I propose, therefore, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as soon as may be possible, a statement summarising the desired information in regard to the more important countries. In the first place, however, I should be glad if he would let me have an indication of the classes of textiles and the countries which it is desired should be included.

MEAT TRADE, AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. ALBERY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the settlement of the dispute between the American and British interests in the meat trade; and if he can make a statement as to the effect such settlement will have on the consumer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been informed that a settlement has not been reached. The second part of the question, accordingly, does not arise.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS (REVISION).

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he intends to introduce legislation this Session revising the Weights and Measures Acts?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced last Session, but with which it was not possible to proceed, will, I hope, be introduced shortly.

COTTON-PIECE GOODS (IMPORTS, CHINA).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the

—
1913.
1920.
1924.


Recorded by "Pieces."





Imported from:—
Pieces.
Pieces.
Pieces.


United Kingdom
…
…
…
…
14,990,433
10,101,603
6,851,408


United States of America
…
…
2,387,256
273,997
8,372


Japan
…
…
…
…
…
6,015,044
10,016,850
12,536,706


Recorded by "Yards."





Imported from:—
Yards.
Yards.
Yards.


United Kingdom
…
…
…
…
11,771,223
12,396,409
9,736,886


United States of America
…
…
18,812
546,717
204,691


Japan
…
…
…
…
…
71,567,310
104,295,159
52,878,088

COTTON (AMERICAN EXPORTS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities in bales of cotton exported from America from 1st August to 31st January in the years 1913–14, 1919–20, and 1925–26, to Great Britain, the Continent, and the Far East, respectively?

EXPORTS OF RAW COTTON FROM THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIODS SPECIFIED.


Destination.
From 1st August, 1913, to 31st January, 1914.
From 1st August, 1919, to 31st January, 1920.
From 1st August, 1925, to 31st January, 1926.






Bales.
Bales.
Bales.


United Kingdom
…
…
…
2,409,000
1,955,000
1,579,000


Continent of Europe
…
…
3,688,000
1,353,000
2,924,300


China and Japan
…
…
…
274,000
383,000
740,000

RUM FACTORY, JAMAICA (TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEE).

Mr. BARR: 37.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade whether, with regard to the assistance which is about to be

quantities of cotton-piece goods imported into China in 1913, 1920, and 1925 from Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Detailed particulars of the import trade of China during 1925 have not yet been received. The following statement shows the quantities of cotton piece-goods imported into China in the years 1913, 1920 and 1924:

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's concurrence, to have it circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the desired information so far as the particulars are available at this date:

granted under the Trade Facilities Act to an English syndicate for erecting in St. James, Jamaica, a new central factory which will manufacture 1,500 puncheons of rum, any special condi-
tions have been attached to this grant; and whether he will undertake to secure that in all such cases the rum so manufactured shall not be sold to anyone engaged in the smuggling traffic to the United States of America?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the further guarantee to Jamaica Sugar Estates reported to Parliament in House of Commons Paper No. 174 of 1925 in respect of a loan of £20,000 for the purchase of machinery for a rum distilling factory. The answer to both parts of his question is in the negative. The conditions attached to the grant of a guarantee are the normal ones, namely, that plant, machinery and materials are to be purchased in this country and shipment made in British ships.

Mr. BRIGGS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that it would be advisable to guarantee only the capital, and not the dividends?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question relating to the guarantee of the loans.

FACTORIES (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and designation of factories which have been established by foreign firms in this country within the last 12 months or are in process of being established?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received representations from the Bradford and other chambers of commerce with regard to the urgent necessity for a new Bankruptcy Act; and whether he will be able to introduce such a Measure at an early date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that a Bankruptcy Amendment Bill may be introduced shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD (MAXIMUM PRICES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement of the Food Council that the bakers have failed to give effect to the scale of maximum prices issued by the Council on 14th November; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The price of standard grade flour was raised on 3rd February, as will have been seen, to 49s. a sack of 280 lbs. At this price for flour, the price which the London bakers' associations recommend their members to charge for bread is in agreement with the price recommended by the Food Council as a maximum. My hon. Friend will have seen the statement in the Press that the Food Council at their meeting on 5th February decided that further information was required on the subject of the prices paid by bakers for their flour. They are, accordingly, requesting certain leading millers to submit their books to the Council's accountants.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GERMAN AND BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. SCURR: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a considerable and increasing volume of trade is taking place between Russia and Germany which is doing much to restore the national economy of Germany; that Russia, is obtaining large credits from Germany for 12 months and longer which is facilitating trade relationships between the countries; and whether, in view of trade depression in this country and the effects of competition of this character, he will take steps to bring about better trading relationships between this country and Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that there hits been some increase in the trade between Russia and Germany. But the amount appears to be only a small fraction of German trade, German exports to Russia during the first nine months of last year varying from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of total German exports. I am also aware that some credits have been given, though I do not know the amount. With reference to the last part of the question, I think that all the trade that is possible under present
conditions can be done under the Trade Agreement, and the volume of that trade must necessarily depend on the extent to which Russia establishes conditions which inspire confidence in traders.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider very seriously the propriety of extending the export credit scheme to Russia so far as cured herrings are concerned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that even in the interest of the principal export commodity of my hon. Friend's constituency, it would be undesirable to upset the general and considered policy of His Majesty's Government.

BRITISH CLAIMS (SETTLEMENT).

Mr. THURTLE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider a settlement of the debt owing to this country by Russia on the basis of that country's capacity to pay?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 4th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RHINE ARMY (OFFICERS' ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. ERSKINE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers who have been transferred from Cologne to Wiesbaden are being temporarily accommodated at a hotel; and whether there is any grant or allowance made to cover the extra cost to which these officers are put?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming): Worthington-Evans
A certain number of officers are accommodated in hotels at Wiesbaden until quarters are available for them. The General Officer Commanding has been authorised to issue allowances towards the extra cost to which these officers are put.

Mr. ERSKINE: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of the desirability of upholding the prestige of the Army of Occupation, British officers were transferred from Cologne to Wiesbaden in second-class railway carriages?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The only first-class carriages in Germany are
bogie corridor stock which, for purely technical reasons, could not be attached to the troop trains, and it was necessary to use second-class carriages instead.

MESS BILLS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large cuts in contemplation in the various departments of the Army, he will simultaneously issue instructions to all commanding officers to exercise economy within their own jurisdiction, and particularly in the direction of mess bills and subscriptions to various objects, which fall particularly heavily on young officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The duty of a commanding officer to ensure economy in his unit, and to protect his officers against unnecessary expense, is already prescribed in King's Regulations; I would refer in particular to paragraphs 83, 1451 and 1476. I have no reason to think that commanding officers fail to carry out their duty in this respect.

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Regulation is so very ineffective?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think it is ineffective.

Mr. ERSKINE: Oh, but it is!

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (INSPECTORS' PAY).

Mr. ROBINSON: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War why an amendment to the Pay Warrant of 1922 was authorised in Army Order 420 of 1925 increasing the pay of inspectors, Royal Army Service Corps and Army Ordnance Services, from £3 4s. 6d. to £3 7s. 3d. per day?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): This is a minor adjustment to put the pay of these officers into proper relation to the pay of officers of lower rank.

YEOMANRY ARMOURED CARS).

Lord APSLEY: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state when the obsolete Peerless armoured car, still on the establishment of Yeomanry armoured car units, will be replaced by a type of British manufacture and modern design?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I cannot yet say.

Lord APSLEY: Can the Secretary for War state when he will be in a position to reply?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I am afraid I cannot say. It depends on money.

CADETS (GRANTS).

Mr. CLARRY: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War the dates when definite sanction was given to the cadets for their grants for the year 1925; if there has been any subsequent withdrawal; and, if so, upon what date?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was announced in the Press on the 14th August last, that financial assistance not exceeding £15,000 a year would be given to the Territorial Cadet Force, but that the conditions governing the grants had not yet been -determined. The decision to hold back the grants was communicated to the Central Council of Territorial Associations in December. By that time, owing to the demand for drastic reductions of expenditure, it had become uncertain whether Army funds could continue to afford assistance to Cadets, and it would have been illogical and confusing to restart the grants only to discontinue them again in the following year. I am convinced of the value of the Cadet Force to the Territorial Army, and it was with the greatest reluctance that I took the step of holding back the grant. I am glad to be able to say that I have; now been able to arrange for the grants to be paid in the current year, and to be included in the Estimates for 1926–7.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country against the militarisation of the schools of this country in this fashion?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: No, Sir, I am not aware that there is any feeling against the cadets.

NETLEY HOSPITAL (DISPENSERS).

Mr. BRIANT: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there are any pharmacists employed at Netley hospital; and, if not, if he will see that the hospital is supplied with an adequate staff of fully qualified men to undertake the dispensing?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There are no pharmacists at Netley hospital, but there is a staff of non-commissioned officers and men fully qualified to undertake the dispensing.

GERMAN PRISONERS (BRITISH COURTS-MARTIAL).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many Germans are at present undergoing sentences of imprisonment given by British courtsmartial during the period of our occupation of Cologne; for what offences they are imprisoned; where they are imprisoned; and how their position is affected by the evacuation which has just taken place?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At the time of the evacuation of Cologne, 23 Germans were undergoing sentences imposed by British Summary and Military Courts for a variety of offences ranging from murder to possession of arms. Nine have been transferred in custody to Wiesbaden, where they will continue to serve their sentences; their position has not been otherwise affected by the withdrawal from Cologne. The remaining 14 were handed over to the German authorities for disposal. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the exact Offences for which they were sentenced.

Following is the statement:


Murder
1


Manslaughter
1


Burglary and aggravated theft
5


Possession of arms and forged documents
1


Possession of arms
11


Assault
2


Embezzlement
1


Posing as a detective
1



23

BRITISH TROOPS, GERMANY.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for War what number of British troops were in the occupied area in the six months prior to the evacuation of Cologne; how many have now been withdrawn to this country; and how many have remained in the occupied area and where are they stationed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The average number of troops serving in the British Army of the Rhine during the six months ended 31st December last was approximately 9,000. The number withdrawn to this country was about 1,000. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing where the remaining 8,000 are stationed.

Following is the statement:

Stations of British troops on the Rhine:

Wiesbaden (Headquarters).—Three infantry battalions.
Bingen.—One infantry battalion.
Konigstein.—One infantry battalion.
Idstein.—One infantry battalion.
Langenswahlbach.—One infantry battalion.
Biebrich.—Brigade of field artillery.
Remaining troops in or near the town of Wiesbaden.

CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as a result of the special efforts being made to find suitable employment for the temporary officers of the Corps of Military Accountants, he will state the number of officers for whom suitable employment has been found by the War Office, and the number still unemployed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As a result of War Office action, two of the temporary officers of the Corps of Military Accountants have been found employment, and in three other cases negotiations are still pending; four others are known to have found employment independently. The War Office have no information as to employment having been found by the remaining seven.

Colonel ENGLAND: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in abolishing the Corps of Military Accountants non-commissioned officers of long service are being discharged with one week's pay for each year's service; whether his attention has been called to one specific case where the man's extension of Service to 21 years had been approved though he is now being dismissed; and whether he will consider either allowing him to transfer to some other corps or giving him a pro rate pension for his completed service?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that it has been necessary to discharge a number of men who had re-engaged to complete 21 years but had not completed 14 years' service, the minimum for which pension is payable. A gratuity has been awarded to these men proportionate to their unexpired service; it is not possible to give a pension. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of the case in question, I will see whether transfer to another arm is possible, but I cannot hold out much hope as this question has already received consideration.

Mr. J. JONES: Are the posters that appear upon the walls asking men to join the Army to be taken as scraps of paper?

POISON GAS.

Mr. THURTLE: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War if experiments in connection with the efficiency of various poison gases are still being carried out by his Department?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is in the affirmative.

FASCIST PROPAGANDA (ALDERSHOT).

Mr. THURTLE: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his Department has any evidence of Fascist propaganda amongst troops at Aldershot or other military centres?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

FELTHAM REPAIR SHOP (CIVILIAN WORKERS).

Mr. KELLY: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will hold up the decision to displace civilians by the introduction of military at the heavy repair shop, Feltham?

Captain KING: No, Sir. The heavy repair shop is a military unit of the Royal Army Service Corps, which, in the ordinary course, must be partly manned by soldiers. Only civilians have been employed there hitherto because the requisite proportion of soldiers has not been available. Notice of the proposed change was given to the War Department Industrial Council on 25th April, 1925, but action has already been suspended for nine months, during which discussions on that Whitley Council have taken place
with a view to minimising hardships consequent on discharges. These discussions have proved abortive, and in the interests of the State action can no longer be delayed.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask why this matter is being forced by the War Department without giving the War Department Industrial Council an opportunity of dealing with the matter Why is this departure being made by the Government when previous Governments have decided against this policy?

Captain KING: With regard to the last part of the question I have no knowledge of any decision having been taken contrary to the action now contemplated. With regard to the first part of the question, as to why it has not been put before the Industrial Council, the hon. Member himself has taken part in the discussions to which I have referred, and he knows the question has been discussed for nine months. At the present time the War Department Industrial Council does not function because an important branch of one of the trade unions concerned refuses to attend the meetings of the Council.

Mr. KELLY: In view of this matter having been before the War Department Industrial Council, and seeing that a meeting of that body is now in progress, why is the War Office imposing its decision without giving that body, with all its difficulties, an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Captain KING: The hon. Member is mistaken about the meeting taking place. There was to have been a meeting last week, but it had to be postponed owing to the refusal of one of the trade unions concerned to take any part in it.

HILSEA ORDNANCE DEPOT (CLERICAL COMPLEMENTS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the clerical complements for the Hilsea Ordnance Depot have yet been filled; and, if so, at what date it is anticipated the civilian clerks concerned will be assimilated to their new grades under the clerical reorganisation scheme for the War Office out-stations?

Mr. GROVES: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the civilian clerical complements for Army Ordnance Services, having in view the fact that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated in the House of Commons on 2nd December, 1925, that the work was then proceeding as rapidly as possible?

Captain KING: Complements for the Office of the Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Provision) have been authorised. Those for the office of the Chief Inspector of Stores and Clothing will be authorised within a few days; those for the Central Ordnance Depots and the Command Depots, including Hilsea, will be ready shortly.

MILITARY CLERKSHIPS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).

Major MALONE: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that serving:soldiers are not at present eligible on discharge for employment in record, pay, and other offices controlled by the War Office, and that at any time they are not eligible for clerkships of Grades I, II and III; that these better-paid appointments have been earmarked as a new field of employment for the Civil Service, and that in future ex-service men can at best only be employed in the lowest grade without any hope of advancement; and wild he, in the interests of the soldier and recruiting, take steps to see that the clerical posts of all grades in these military offices, which have always been manned by ex-service men in the past, are reserved for the fighting services as heretofore?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am making inquiries. I have no intention of reducing the number of appointments open to serving soldiers on their discharge.

CLOTHES AND STORES.

Sir F. HALL: 93.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the approximate value of clothes and stores, separately, that were in hand at the date of the last stocktaking; and what was the date of such stocktaking?

Captain KING: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to his question on the 22nd December last, I am considering the whole question of an annual valuation of Army stocks, but I am not at present in a position to give these
figures. As regards the last part of the question, stocktaking by the Ordnance Department is a continuous process, the whole of the items being verified over a period of three years. Stocks of clothing and stores in the hands of units are verified annually on the 31st March.

Sir F. HALL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when he will be in a position to give me a reply to the first part of the question? I should like to know when I may put it down again.

Captain KING: The valuation is under consideration now. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put the question down in a fortnight s time, I hope I may then be able to give him a reply.

COST ACCOUNTING.

Sir F. HALL: 94.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Sir H. Lawrence's committee in their Report dealing with Army accountancy expressed the view that the control of Army expenditure by regulation based on maximum allowances for all normal conditions was necessarily wasteful; that nevertheless, arising out of the disbandment of the Corps of Accountants, this system has again come into being; and whether there is reliable evidence to show that the saving that will be effected by the staff reduction that has taken place will counterbalance the wastage of expenditure which occurred in the years preceding 1919 under the methods of accountancy that have been revived?

Captain KING: My hon. and gallant Friend is correct in his statement of the views of the Lawrence Committee, but is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the recent decision regarding cost accounting. Cost accounts are to be continued for all establishments in which there is reason to consider that they are of proved use for financial control. The saving to be effected in staff reduction is a real one. I hope to deal more fully with this subject in introducing Army Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he has yet received any Report from the Departmental Committee inquiring into the question of
grants for necessitous areas; and, if so, what action he proposes to take with regard to the same?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I understand that the Committee are not yet in a position to present a Report as they have not completed their inquiry.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the serious position of these districts, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Committee that they should expedite the consideration of this matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is a case for representations to the Committee. I am sure they are conducting their inquiry as expeditiously as possible. But they are dependent for the purposes of the inquiry upon the submission of proposals to them by other people.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

SUBVENTION.

Mr. REMER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give an assurance that under no circumstances will the coal subsidy be continued after May?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Until the Royal Commission's Report has been received and considered my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement as to the future of the coal industry.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information when the Coal Commission will issue their Report?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have none. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has.

Mr. THOMAS: May we take it that any statement to the contrary by a Minister of the Government is without authority?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot believe that any of my colleagues could, even in a moment of forgetfulness, make a statement that would contradict what I have said on the authority of the Prime Minister.

Mr. THOMAS: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into some of the incapable utterances of his colleagues?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have a good deal to do!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In spite of the pre-occupations of the Foreign Minister, may I invite him to look into a statement recently made by the Home Secretary that "under no circumstances will the subsidy be continued after May"?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): May I, Mr. Speaker, answer that last observation? I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to quote my speech accurately.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is impossible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The word, I think, used by the Minister was "unthinkable."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: To please the hon. and gallant Gentleman I will send him a verbatim report of my speech.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Even a verbatim report would not be accurate.

PITS (REOPENING).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 101.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines have been opened or reopened, and how many closed and not reopened, since the granting of the coal subsidy, indicating in each instance the number of men affected?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 102.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any coal-pits which were closed before the date when the subvention to the coal mining industry was granted last year have since been reopened; and what pits, if any, open at that date have since been closed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): Since 1st August, 1925, 126 mines, normally employing 18,046 wage-earners, have been closed and not reopened, while 131 mines, at present employing 39,148 wage-earners, have been reopened, and 42 new mines, at present employing 880 wage-earners, have been opened.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF LOCARNO.

Mr. PONSONBY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any of the Dominions has declared its adhesion to the Treaty of Locarno?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): As was mentioned in replies to questions towards the end of last Session, cornmunications with the Governments of the Dominions on the subject of the Locarno Treaty are passing but, so far as I am aware, none of the Dominion Parliaments has yet been invited to express its views regarding adhesion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATAL (INDIAN SUBJECTS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to reconcile and adjust the two points of view on the Indian question in Natal which were recently voiced by the Viceroy of India and the Governor-General of South Africa?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A deputation from the Government it of India is now in South Africa and have, I understand, had an opportunity of placing their views before the Union Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Report of Lord Meston's Committee has been received; and, if so, will he publish it or arrange for it to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Chairman has drafted a Report and intends shortly to call the Committee together to consider it. The present draft represents the views of the Chairman alone, and has not yet been adopted by the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to take action during this Session along the lines of the Report of the Departmental Committee on sexual offences against young persons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. This Report, which was only recently presented to me, is receiving my careful consideration, but I am unable to make any statement at present.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that large numbers of organisations of women are very anxious that something should be done along these lines?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is only fair to say that there is another Report from a Departmental Committee coming to the House, and I propose not to ask any legislative sanction for either of them until they both are ready, and so have one Bill for the two.

Miss WILKINSON: When the right hon. Gentleman is taking both these Reports together—a very wise thing to do—will he also consider increasing the women police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of women police hardly arises. As the hon. Lady knows, I have already increased the women police in London where I have power. I am advised that further increases will take place throughout the country, but I have no power to insist upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. REMER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there is a leakage in the return of Income Tax through the fact that the tax is not deducted at source from the 5 per cent. War Loan; if he is aware that there has been no check of the register since its inception; and if he will take steps to see that a systematic check is undertaken?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that any deviation from the principle of taxation at the source involves a grave risk of leakage of revenue, and my hon. Friend will recognise that the circumstances which led to the deviation in the case, of War Stocks were entirely exceptional. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that there has been no check of the 5 per cent. War Loan Register since its inception. A check of the larger holdings was made several years ago and it is proposed to
repeat this check so soon as pressure of work in the Inland Revenue Department permits.

Mr. REMER: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would take the registers of the Bank of England, which should be handed to the inspectors of taxes in the various districts? This would lead to a very large revenue accruing to the Treasury.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will take note of the suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE GOODS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).

Mr. PENNY: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with the object of assisting employment in this country and stimulating Empire development, the Government purchasing Departments are now stipulating that in every contract, where possible, not only are the manufactured articles supplied to be of British or Empire origin, but that the materials and components used in their manufacture must be of similar origin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 20th and 30th July last, to similar questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hallam Division, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Deritend Division, copies of which I am sending him. I understand that the question whether any other steps can be taken to secure the object in view is to be considered further by the Government Purchasing Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOX HUNTING.

Mr. DALTON: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the expenditure on fox hunting in this country amounts to £10,000,000 a year; and whether, in view of the condition of the national finances, he has considered the possibility of raising additional revenue by imposing a luxury tax on this form of sport?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the estimate mentioned appeared recently in the Press. I understand that
the bulk of the expenditure is represented by wages to grooms, etc., and provender for horses, hounds, etc. I have no means of verifying the figures. Many forms of taxation should be considered, but few chosen.

Captain EVERARD: Would the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the large number of people in the Midlands who are employed directly or indirectly by fox-hunting?

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION (TREASURY ADVANCE).

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representation with reference to the high rate of interest charged the Welsh Church Commissioners on the advance made by the Treasury to them on the security of the property formerly belonging to the Welsh Church; and whether, in view of the reduction which has taken place in the rate of interest, he can now reconsider the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for the University of Wales on the 26th March last. There is no question of amending the terms of the loan.

Oral Answers to Questions — LACE IMPORT DUTY (CROCHET WORK).

Mr. MACKINDER: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Lace Import Duty is being charged upon homemade crochet work sent by the maker abroad as presents to relatives and friends in Great Britain?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Lace Duty is charged on imported crochet lace, however made, but not on other forms of crochet work. There is no exemption of presents as such from Customs duty, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 17th December last on this point to the hon. Member for Huddersfield.

Mr. MACKINDER: If I bring the right hon. Gentleman evidence that tax has been charged on home-made crochet work
made from yarn as thick as string, will he remit the taxation, and give instructions that it shall always be remitted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to see the premises established before I attempt to draw a conclusion from them.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does the Chancellor suggest seriously that home-made crochet work sent as a present to a friend in this country is in competition with the Nottingham lace trade?

Miss WILKINSON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what kind of crochet work it is which could not be defined as lace?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, that is a question on which I should have to have the opportunity of consulting the experts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVANCES TO FARMERS.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and, if so, what loss has been incurred by the Treasury in respect of advances made to farmers under the Credit Act of 1923 for the purchase of their farms.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No loss has been incurred to date. My hon. Friend will realise that the experience gained so far is very limited, the advances being of very recent date and having in the majority of cases nearly 60 years to run.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer hear in mind, in framing the terms of his new credit proposals in connection with the Government's agricultural policy, the unfailing honesty and punctual payments of farmers on all occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY NOTE ISSUE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make any change in the present system of note issue and whether such change will require legislation?

Sir WILLIAM LANE-MITCHELL: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any decision has been arrived at to transfer the issue of Treasury notes to the Bank of England?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer these questions together. As I stated in the Budget speech last year, His Majesty's Government have accepted in principle the recommendations for the transfer of the currency note issue to the Bank of England made in the concluding paragraphs of the Report of the Currency Committee (Command Paper 2393 of 1925), to which I would refer the hon. Members. The change would require legislation; and could not, in any case, take place for some time to come.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Whenever this change takes place, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the very great experience and excellent work in the printing of the present Treasury notes, and try to see if economy cannot be served by preserving that method of printing?

Mr. SPEAKER: These testimonials should be given privately.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind the risk that any revival of trade, if and when it begins, may be frustrated if too rigid a limit be put upon the currency?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, when the transfer takes place, steps will be taken to secure the continued receipt by the State of the profits obtained from the securities held against the fiduciary issue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter cannot possibly reach maturity for some time to come, possibly for a long time to come, and when it does, it will require legislation, and that will be the moment to take all these matters into careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the total number of national savings certificates being held by purchasers in excess of the 500 permitted under the Regulations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid this information is not available. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that under the Regulations savings certificates do not count towards the normal maximum of
500 if (a) purchased out of war service gratuity or (b) inherited from a deceased holder. Apart from such cases I have no reason to believe that there is any large number of excess holdings. Interest is of course not paid on any irregular excess.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION (COST PER HEAD).

Mr. LOWTH: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of taxation per head of the population in respect of each of the following services: the Army, Navy, Air Force, education, public health, war pensions, old age pensions, and Civil Service administration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in reply to this question.

Following is the statement:

It is impossible to state what proportion of the expenditure on any particular service is met out of taxation as opposed to other sources of revenue. The net expenditure on the services named provided for in the original Estimates of the present financial year, divided by the population taken as 44,000,000, works out as follows:


—
1925–26 Original Estimates.
Cost per head of population.



£
£
s.
d.


Army
44,500,000
1
0
2¾


Navy
60,500,000
1
7
6


Air Force
15,513,000

7
0½


Education Grants
46,916,000
1
1
4


Public Health, Unemployment Insurance and Housing.
32,417,000

14
8¾


War Pensions (excluding Administration).
63,623,000
1
8
11


Old Age Pensions (excluding Administration).
26,794,000

12
2¼


Civil Service Administration (excluding Post Office and Revenue Departments).-
12,846,000

5
10

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD FUND.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his
recent statement to a deputation of local authorities concerning his proposal to divert the Road Fund from the purposes to which it is pledged, whether he can give an assurance that his action will not arrest the progress of any of the important schemes already drawn up for improving the alignment of roads at dangerous places, the making of new bridges where urgently required, and the carrying out of any other plans for the speeding up of industrial and general traffic and the removal of road perils to life and limb?

Mr. J. HUDSON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his statement to the deputation of local authorities on the 27th ultimo, he will state if the Road Fund in future is to come under the control of the Treasury, or whether the Ministry of Transport will have the final word in the making of grants as at present; and, if not, what alternative he offers between the arrest of the work of making the roads adequate to the increased traffic and the placing of a heavy new burden on the ratepayers and on industry?

Mr. LAWSON: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under his proposal to divert the Road Fund from road purposes, the Ministry of Transport will have unfettered powers or whether the local authorities will be compelled to go to the Treasury each time a road grant is needed?

Mr. PARKINSON: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that any proposal to divert the Road Fund or part thereof to non-road purposes would involve a reduction in the grants to local authorities for maintenance purposes from the present 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. in respect to first-class roads, and from the present 25 per cent. to nothing in respect of the second-class roads, consideration will he given to the added burden which would be imposed upon local authorities before any such proposal is decided upon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer these question's together. There is no intention of reducing the amount of money available for the maintenance of existing roads. On the contrary I contemplate that the funds available for this purpose should be increased, particu-
larly in the case of rural roads. I have, however, been considering for many months past the whole question of the finances of the Road Fund and its relations to the Exchequer. Should the Government eventually decide to propose extensive changes in these matters, the plan and policy as a whole will be laid before Parliament in the Budget statement and will thereafter be examined under all the elaborate safeguards of our financial procedure. In the meanwhile, it is obviously impossible for rile to deal partially with the various detailed aspects of proposals which can only be judged as a whole, and I must claim from the House the latitude which has been invariably accorded to Chancellors of the Exchequer in the preparation and' explanation of the financial policy of the year.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the repeated pledges given by different Governments and pledges by various Ministers, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, before the Government reach any decision on this question, Parliament will have the opportunity of debating it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have always understood that it was the duty of the Government to submit the proposals which they thought right and wise to Parliament but I have never yet heard it contended that before the Government even made up their minds to submit proposals to the judgment of the House they should first obtain the judgment of the House as to whether they are entitled to frame them.

Mr. CLYNES: I am well aware of the customary procedure, but I would point out that in this instance repeated pledges have been already given by successive Governments, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, on view of that fact, whether he does not think that before a decision is reached the House of Commons should have a chance of debating it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think such an idea would conflict altogether with the principle of responsible government. It is the duty of the Government of the day to make up their minds as to what they advise as the best course for the country, and then to submit those proposals to Parliament and leave Parliament every opportunity for discussion.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grants from the Road Fund are being held up in consequence of their not knowing what the Government are going to do in regard to this Road Fund?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; a great deal of work is being done, but large commitments are not being embarked on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that the Treasury are prohibiting large commitments—is that in accordance with the spirit of consulting Parliament just adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Parliament is invariably consulted in matters which require legislative sanction, or which involve any financial expense. In regard to matters of administration, the Government take the course which they think fit, and all Parliamentary opportunities which are available enable the House to criticise the exercise of their administrative power.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least see that the House has the same regular and full information that is given regularly to the Press on this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given no information to the Press, and I think that none should be given at any time until the proposals of the Government are put forward as a whole but when we see statements made in the Press it does not follow that they are the result of information, they may be the result of surmise.

Mr. THOMAS: May we take it that the Press statement with regard to the Road Fund is merely intelligent anticipation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen about 20 different statements, many of which are contradictory. If I were to attempt to say which were right and which were wrong, I should certainly depart from the principle I have just asked the House to observe of reserving a full disclosure until the Budget speech is made.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Is it not the case that the Government policy in this matter is already in operation so far as the existing schemes for the improvement of roads are concerned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; no decision has been taken on the main question of principle up to the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION OF BETTING.

Mr. DIXEY: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to say whether he has now come to a decision on the question of taxation of betting?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will not be surprised, I am sure, to hear that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry of our Ambassador in Paris and see whether the French Government are not now taxing betting by bookmakers in France and consider their method of licensing and taxation of bets before deciding finally on introducing a measure for taxing betting in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am looking into the subject, as into a, good many cater subjects, and I will not overlook that particular aspect.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. PENNY: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the committee appointed to investigate in regard to Imperial contribution for taxation purposes from the Channel Islands have yet reported; and whether it is intended to place the findings of the committee before this House for discussion?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. The Report of the committee has been submitted to the Lord Presidents and is now under consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement at present as to the publication of the Report, or the discussion of the recommendations of the committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what foreign Governments owing money to this country arising out of the
War have negotiations for its repayment or funding taken place; and with what Governments have settlements been arrived at for the repayment of those debts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the very full statement which I made in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) on the 17th November last. To this I have only to add that the Italian debt has been funded on the terms known to the House. If it would be convenient to the hon. and gallant Member,. I will send him a copy of that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT CREDITS (PORTUGAL).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 70.
asked he Chancellor the Exchequer if the repayment of credits granted to Portugal under the British export credit scheme have all been made?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. All payments due to the Export Credits Department in connection with the credit arranged with the Portuguese Government under the Export Credits scheme have been duly made. Certain payments are not yet due.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN FILMS (TAXATION)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the amount of money taken to the United States out of this country in 1925 in respect of American films exhibited here; and whether the profits so derived by American film interests were subject to any taxation by the British Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Inland Revenue authorities do not fail to take the necessary steps to secure the assessment of any tax which is legally due in these cases.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to recover taxation in this way
for films exhibited here when the money is taken to America?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly endeavour to do so.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, the total value of the films imported into this country appears to be very much less than- the value transmitted in respect of them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is a question which ought to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREWING COMPANIES (PROFITS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the aggregate profits of the brewing companies in the United Kingdom for the year 1913–14; and the latest year for which complete figures are available?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Southwark Central on the 4th August last, of which I am sending him a copy. No later figures are yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCISABLE LIQUORS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. GROVES: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer £ he can state the quantities of spirits, beer, and wine retained for Home consumption in Northern Ireland during the financial year ending 31st March, 1925, and the spirit, beer, and wine duty, respectively, attributable to Northern Ireland on such liquors during the sante period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The estimated figures are as follow:


Article.
Approximate Quantity.
Attributable Revenue.




£


Beer
Standard Barrels
858,000


222,000


Bulk Barrels


261,000



Proof Gallons



Spirits
411,000
1,456,000



Gallons



Wine
254,000
58,000

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how much that allows per head of the population?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants receive 40 working days' leave in the year; whether these days are exclusive of Sundays, Bank Holidays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday; and if he will take steps, in the interests of economy, to secure that the holidays of civil servants coincide in length and number with those enjoyed by persons employed in commercial and municipal undertakings?

Mr. McNEILL: The number of civil servants, exclusive of those on foreign service, who are eligible for the amount of annual leave mentioned in my hon. Friend's question is estimated to be approximately 3,500. Every day taken, other than Sundays and general holidays, counts as a day's leave. I have no particulars of the leave actually received, but in many cases it is considerably less than the maximum amount allowable. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware of the grounds for the suggestion that the holidays of these officers are disproportionate to those enjoyed by persons of comparable standing. I have no reason to believe that if due allowance is made for every day's absence, they are out of scale with the leave arrangements of business and professional men.

Mr. DEANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in municipal undertakings such persons as town clerks, borough, city and county surveyors, and the like, never receive more than one month's holiday per annum, while subordinate officers generally get a fortnight?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware of that, but it does not follow that those cases are quite comparable. The cases of the civil servants are much more comparable with the profession to which the hon. Member and I have the honour to belong.

Mr. DEANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the profession to which he and I belong take a holiday they do so at their own expense?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the full amount of the holidays is not always taken by members of the Civil Service, and that in the circumstances which often obtain, it is impossible for them to take the full amount of their holidays?

Mr. McNEILL: That is undoubtedly the case, and I know the higher grade officials very often sacrifice their holidays owing to the exigencies of public business.

Mr. REMER: Taking the larger businesses, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us of any great business men who take as many as 40 working days' holiday in a year?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 97.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intends proceeding with: the erection of the Weir type of steel house in view of the official architect's report submitted to certain West of Scotland authorities?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer is in the affirmative. Messrs. Weir are taking the necessary steps to remove the defects mentioned in the architect's report, and to prevent their occurrence in future.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 98
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has yet completed his inquiries into the housing demands in the Gala Water district of Midlothian, Gorebridge area; and, if so, what action has he taken to compel the local authority to erect houses;
(2) how many houses have been built under the various Government subsidy schemes in the Gala Water district of Midlothian;
(3) how many houses are of one, two, and three apartments, respectively, in the Gala Water district of Midlothian, with the number of occupants of the respective types of houses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the result of further communication between the Scottish Board of Health and the local authority, it has been ascertained that the latter have been unable to make any
definite progress owing to the inadequacy of the water supply. I understand that the local authority are at present considering a report which they have received on the subject from their engineers. Ten houses have been built in this district under State-assisted housing schemes. At the date of the 1921 Census, there were in the district 113 houses of one apartment, 630 of two apartments, and 397 of three apartments. The Census Returns show that 310 persons were living in houses of one apartment, 2,607 in houses of two apartments, and 1,806 in houses of three apartments.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that repeated applications have been made to the county council to get on with their building scheme, and that those on the spot declare that there is a sufficient water supply for at least an additional 100 houses, if only the county authorities would get on with the building?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that they are considering the scheme. I regret the delay, which I think is unfortunate.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask your guidance and assistance, Mr. Speaker, if possible, as to when Members of the House may have an opportunity of receiving oral replies to questions submitted to the Postmaster-General, since there appears to be little or no opportunity according to present arrangements?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which is not comprised within the duties of Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of arrangement with the Government, to suit the convenience of Members. I can only ask Members not to judge, by the opening days of the Session, as to how things will work out later on. After a Recess, there is, naturally, an extra desire for information, which may not be sustained for a prolonged period. If, however, the hon. Member will address himself to the representative of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure his request will be considered.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

CONDITION OF TRADE.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the condition of Trade, and move a Resolution.

FLYING SERVICES.

Mr. G. HARVEY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the inadequate squadron strength of our Air Force compared with certain other countries and to the apparent inadequacy of our numerical flying strength compared with ground personnel, and move a Resolution.

WAR PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to War Pensions Administration, and move a Resolution.

SUBMARINES.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the growth of expenditure on and the use of Submarines, and move, a Resolution.

CADET CORPS AND CANDIDATES FOR MILITARY SERVICES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to various matters relating to Cadets, to the future of Cadet Corps and the position of certain candidates for Military Services, and move a Resolution.

TRADE DISPUTES {USE OF MILITARY).

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the use of the military in connection with Trade Disputes, and move a Resolution.

CATHOLICS {DISABILITY).

Dr. WATTS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the disability of Catholics, and move a Resolution.

AIR MINISTRY.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call atten-
tion to the fact that the Air Ministry is redundant, and move a Resolution.

POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the present condition of the Postal and Telephone Services, and move a Resolution.

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity of completing the Naval Base at Singapore, and move a Resolution.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

Mr. BRIANT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the inequalities of our Electoral System, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. DEAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to matters relating to Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BIRTH CONTROL) ENABLING.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise local authorities to incur expenditure, when deemed expedient, in conveying knowledge of birth control methods to married women who desire it.
This Bill seeks to remove one of the disabilities of poverty it is in no sense a party Measure, and I am moving it entirely on my own responsibility as a Member of the House. I believe it arouses a certain amount of opposition, but I am glad to be able to say it cuts right across the ordinary party divisions, and commands a large measure of support in all quarters. The particular purpose of the Bill is to make known to many poor women information which will enable them to restrict their families and which is at present enjoyed and utilized by wealthier women. I imagine it is generally agreed in these days that poverty ought not to be any bar to knowledge, yet, as a matter of fact., in regard to this question of the restriction of families, poverty is a bar to a
very large number of working women. Women of the wealthy and the middle classes are able to get this information in regard to the restriction of the size of their families. The fact that they are doing so is shown in the birth rate statistics. Year after year it becomes more marked in the upper and middle classes that there is a distinct falling off in the birth rate, but so far as the poorer people are concerned the tendency is for the birth rate to remain almost stationary.
I should like to quote some figures in support of this contention as to the difference between the wealthy and middle classes and the poorer classes. In Westminster the birth rate is 11.2 per thousand. In Shoreditch, the poorest and probably the most crowded area of the City, the birth rate is 25 per thousand; in other words, it is more than twice the birth rate of Westminster. If you go to Chelsea, another comparatively rich borough, the birth rate is only 14.3 per thousand. We have this extraordinary and in my view indefensible anomaly. In those districts where overcrowding is most intense, where poverty is most acute, where all the elemental necessities for healthy child life are most conspicuous by their absence, you get a very high birth rate and in other districts, where conditions are infinitely better, you have a comparatively low birth rate. No Members of the House are going to contend that that state of affairs is satisfactory, either from a national or a human standpoint. It is said we are breeding from the wrong stock. I am not prepared to accept that. There is no reason to assume that the children of the working classes are one whit inferior, either physically or mentally, to the children of the better-off classes. What is true is that as soon as they come into life they never get anything like equality of opportunity with the other classes.
The Bill I am introducing is not intended to impose any charge upon the national Exchequer. It merely lays down that local authorities who so desire may incur this expenditure in giving to married women information which will enable them to restrict their families. It is permissive merely. I ask the House to realise that there is no likelihood of a popularly elected public authority deciding to take action in this matter unless
it is convinced of the necessity for it and unless, too, it is convinced that it has the backing of the majority of the electorate behind it, otherwise it will be inviting electoral disaster. There is no new principle involved in the Bill. It is merely an extension of the generally accepted theory that we should spread useful information for the purpose of maintaining the national standard of health. The whole of our public services are based on that principle. We are expending money in broadcasting information about sanitation, personal hygiene, diet and matters of that sort. We are expending money in broadcasting information about tuberculosis and venereal disease, and we are doing that solely on the ground of maintaining the public health. The Ministry of Health itself is engaged in a fight on behalf of national fitness, and there is not a phase of that fight which is not made more difficult by the fact that in the very poorest districts women are having much larger families than is good either for them or for the State. It is in order to remove this grievance that I am asking the House to allow this Measure to pass.
4.0 P.M.
I am a Socialist, and I would be the last man to pretend that this restriction of families is any real cure for the root problem of poverty. The social inequalities and disabilities which afflict the mass of the poor people have their roots much deeper than this. But, even as a Socialist, I do say that knowledge which would enable working-class people to exercise a wise restriction in the size of their families would have an immediate ameliorative effect on the condition of those workers, and it is for that reason that, as a Socialist, I am prepared to advocate this Bill. I want, finally, to put in a plea, and a very strong plea, for the over-burdened wife and mother. There is no more tragic figure in our civilisation than the over-burdened mother of a large family in the poor, over-crowded districts in this country, and, if anyone is entitled to consideration in connection with this question, it is that mother. As I have already explained, the wealthy women and the middle-class women have this knowledge. Surely the working woman who has got to go through the travail of childbirth and who has got to be responsible for the
care of the children after they are born is entitled to consideration as to the number of children she should bear.
These are days of sex equality, and, if the House is honest, it must realise some implications of that sex equality. I submit that one of them is that a woman is entitled so far as practicable to decide what the size of her family should be. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of working-class women in this country to-day who have not the necessary knowledge. As a consequence, many of them have very much larger families than they want to have. Many of them spend weary years during their child-bearing period, worrying about the possibility of another child coming to add to their burdens. As a consequence of these anxieties, they are frequently thrown into the aims of quacks and charlatans of all kinds, and in their desperation they frequently resort to all kinds of hazardous and dangerous expedients, with very serious consequences to themselves. I submit that it is time a helping hand was held out to these women and that the book of knowledge was made open to them.
I appeal to the House to give this Bill a First Reading. I appeal, particularly, to my hon. Friends on this side of the House who believe in equality as between rich and poor, and many of whom make the proud boast that they have never yet deserted the cause of poverty, on this occasion to stand by the cause of poverty and rote for this Resolution. I appeal to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, because this Bill is in strict accordance with the good sound Radical doctrine that there should be equality of opportunity with regard to knowledge. I appeal to them to support it. And I appeal to Members on the other side of the House to support it, not on the comparatively selfish ground that by means of a wise exercise of birth control the problems of overcrowding and poverty would be diminished without any cost to themselves but on the higher and better ground that they tee believe that, while knowledge of this kind is available to the rich and the middle-class women, it should not be denied to the very poor.

Mr. BARR: I rise to oppose the First Reading of this Bill, first of all, on the ground that I think it raises far too
large an issue, and is far too controversial to be settled under the Ten Minute Rule and with the limited discussion that we can have. I recognise the spirit in which my hon. Friend spoke, and it is quite true that this is not a party Measure. I should have been glad if he had elaborated that a little, and I will do it for him, so far as this particular side of the House is concerned. At the Liverpool Conference, held on 29th September, the Resolution of the Executive was carried against an Amendment in the very same terms in which the hon. Member is moving now by a majority, on a card vote, of 771,000, and this was the finding of that Labour Conference:
That the subject of birth control is in its nature not one that should be made a political, party issue, but should remain a matter upon which members of the party should be free to hold and to promote their individual convictions.
I submit that by this Measure you are making it a political issue, and will tend to make it a party issue. I would call attention to what transpired under the Labour Government. On 30th July, 1924, my hon. Friend put a question to the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and this was the answer:
My view is that the institutions provided by local authorities at the cost of public funds should not be used for purposes such as that referred to in the question, which are the subject of controversy, without an express direction from Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1924; col. 2050, Vol. 176.]
That direction my hon. Friend now seeks to give, but I would remind him and the House of what happened a week later when he put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. On the 6th August, 1924, he asked him whether he had executive power already to do this, and this was the answer:
I am not quite sure whether I have, but, even if I had, I would not introduce such a revolutionary change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th August, 1924; col. 2909, Vol. 176.]
If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston considers this a revolutionary change, I certainly cannot take the innocent view of it that my hon. Friend seeks to put before the House. He has spoken of the deplorable condition of ignorance on the part of very poor women. I think that is greatly exaggerated, and
I would quote Mrs. Harrison Bell, a member of the Labour Executive, who at the. Liverpool Conference spoke on behalf of the Executive, and said:
Many of them knew perfectly well that it was quite easy to obtain the information; indeed, speaking as a dweller in a working-class neighbourhood, it was very difficult to avoid the information which was thrust into people's doors.
I consider that I am as class conscious as my hon. Friend, and I strongly insist and desire that the best medical information and the best medical skill should be brought to the doors of the very poor But that is quite a different question from entering upon a national policy of birth control and propaganda. Economically, it is a policy of despair. Economically, it is exactly the same argument as that in regard to emigration. I heard an hon. Member from the opposite benches last Thursday say that actually there were more persons in employment now than in 1914. Some draw from that the conclusion that all our present trouble is due to the population that has arrived in the last 10 years. Malthus in his "Principle of Population" objected to what he called the "perfectibility of society." His argument was that the population tended always to increase at a greater rate than the means of subsistence, and that we would be in a far worse condition but for the beneficent results of wars and epidemics and famines and numerous beneficent diseases. I believe the very opposite. I believe that a bountiful Creator has provided ample resources for all, and that if we had only wise production and just distribution there would be ample for all the people. It is because I believe in the adequacy of nature and in what Malthus called the "Perfectibility of Society" that I sit on these benches, and find the real solution of our troubles, not in the limitation of families which my hon. Friend is advocating, but in so using our resources that there shall be ample provision for all the people, and that we shall find the wealth of our nation, in the words of John Russell, "not in the least number but in the greatest number of happy human, beings."
One word more and I have done. Time and delicacy forbid my entering into the moral aspects of this issue, save to say this: These moral instincts and these religious prejudices, call them what you will, are after all the purest, the finest,
the most powerful, and the most potent influences in the uplift of mankind; and in questions like this, are just as sure a guide as science itself, and if we choose to defy them or to ignore them, we do so at our own peril, and at the peril of the State. Therefore, on this and other grounds, which I have not time to state, I invite this House to give to this Measure even on the Motion for its First Reading

a determined, a decisive, and an overwhelming rejection.

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise local authorities to incur expenditure, when deemed expedient, in conveying knowledge of birth control methods to married women who desire it.

The House divided: Ayes, 81 Noes, 167.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[4.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Huntingfield, Lord
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hurst, Gerald B.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newby)
Lamb, J. Q.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Loder, J. de V.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cooper, A. Duff
Looker, Herbert William
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Cove, W. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Taylor, R. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lunn, William
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Varley, Frank B.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, I.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
March, S.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Fenby, T. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Fermoy, Lord
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gee, Captain R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grant, J. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hammersley, S. S.
Paling, W.



Harrison, G. J. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Thurtle and Sir W. Davison.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Harland, A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Dixey, A. C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Barr, J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hayday, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hayes, John Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Homan, C. W. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fielden, E. B.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Buchanan, G.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Bullock, Captain M.
Forrest, W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Burman, J. B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gates, Percy
Jephcott, A. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Charleton, H. C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kennedy, T.


Christie, J. A.
Gillett, George M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gosling, Harry
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Compton, Joseph
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Connolly, M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.


Cope, Major William
Gretton, Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Moles, Thomas
Rose, Frank H.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Tinker, John Joseph


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell, Alexander Witt (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arther Clive
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Waddington, R.


Murchison, C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Naylor, T. E.
Sandon, Lord
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nicholson, Cot. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Dr. T.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sexton, James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Penny, Frederick George
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Smithers, Waldron
Wolmer, Viscount


Raine, W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Remer, J. R.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Remnant, Sir James
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Storry-Deans, R.



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ritson, J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Mr. Blundell and Mr. Scurr.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Sutton, J. E.

BURGH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to provide for the discontinuance of the Burgh Registers of Sasines in Scotland," presented by Mr. MACINTYRE; supported by Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Robert Macdonald, Major Broun-Lindsay, and Mr. Boothby; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 25th February, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–26.

CLASS I.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £;7,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before we pass this comparatively small Estimate we should have an assurance from, the Minister in Charge of the Vote on one or two points. What I am about to say may seem a little contradictory. Helsingfors is the capital of one of the new States resulting from the world upheaval, and it undoubtedly requires a suitable building as a Legation for our Minister. I have always urged that our diplomatic and consular representatives should be suitably housed in buildings that will uphold the dignity of our country abroad, and be in every way worthy of the King's representative. I suppose the Government have satisfied themselves that the new building that has been taken over is suitable for the purpose. Two winters ago I passed through Helsingfors on my way to Russia, and, what I suppose most Members of Parliament do when they are in a foreign capital, I paid a visit to our representative. The house in which he was housed was suitable and well-situated, and quite up to the standard which is desirable.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Was it a steel house?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was not a steel house. It had been the house of a Finnish nobleman. It was not ostentatious, but was well suited for the purpose. It had been taken over by our Minister. Why was it necessary to pur-
chase another house and to give up this house? Why go to the great expense of equipping, furnishing- and decorating a new building? If there is a suitable explanation, I am quite prepared to be guided by the hon. Member in charge of the Vote. While I do not wish to see our Ministers housed in other than suitable and proper buildings, I think in this case some explanation is required. Had the old house to be given up, or was it found unsuitable? The amount of money involved is considerable. The total Estimate is £22,500. These are times when the utmost economy is required in every Department, and it rests with Parliament to force the Government to economise even in small matters. This may seem absurd when we vote millions without discussion, but it is necessary that the Committee should assert itself, and ask for a full explanation of this extra expenditure of £22,000.

The CHAIRMAN: Where does the hon and gallant Member get the figure of £22,000?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We are only asked for £7,500, but the total Estimate for the proposed work is £22,500.

The CHAIRMAN: On Supplementary Estimates the limits of discussion are very narrow. The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the amount of increase, except in the case of a new service.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is a new building. This was not in the original Estimate.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will be perfectly in order in confining his remarks to the Helsingfors consular building.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must not allow myself to be led away by my fervent desire for economy. There is a principle involved here, and I hope a full explanation will be forthcoming.

Mr. WHITELEY: My name is down on the Paper to move a reduction of the Vote by £100. I wish to know why we should be asked to vote an additional £7,500. While we agree that provision of this kind has to be made, we cannot understand how it is that such a large sum should be expended on this house.
Instead of our being asked for a supplementary sum there ought to have been some saving. What does this house comprise? Why is it necessary to have such a large residence? What particular use is made of it? Although I have been a Member of this House for some time, I am not conversant with all that is essential in a Legation house. It will be information to me to know why this large sum of money is to be spent.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Owing to the indisposition of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I have been asked to take these Votes to-day, and I will do my best to answer questions. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy) is quite right when he says that this work is necessary owing to Finland having become an independent State. It is very necessary that our representatives abroad should be housed in premises no worse than those of any other nation. Our Minister up to the moment has been accommodated in a house that has been rented at a very big rent. We have been paying for the house £1,200 a year, and we have also had to pay—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the reasons why another £7,500 is required, not the reasons for having a separate Legation. That was passed last year.

Mr. GILLETT: On a point of Order if we look at the previous Estimates, we find that this is an entirely new Estimate, of which this Vote is only a part. I cannot find any record in the past Estimates of any building devoted to this purpose

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps I can explain. As a matter of fact, this is a new building. The sum in the main Estimate was for the payment of rent of the Legation premises. This is an Estimate for a new building. We have been paying £1,200 a year for a leased house, and in addition we have had to pay £250 a year for Chancellery offices. Therefore, in all up to now we have been paying for our premises £1,450 a year. That is rather a heavy burden, considering the nature of the premises. Since the main Estimate was agreed to by the
House last year, we have had a very favourable offer for the purchase of a house for £16,146. We bargained, and we got the offer down by no less than nearly half-a-million Finnish marks. My information is that it was a very good bargain indeed for this house. It is a very suitable house, but this was the condition that was laid down. They said, "We make you this offer, and it is a good offer. We consider it a very reasonable offer, but you have to make up your minds whether or not you accept it, because if you do not accept it more or less straight away, it will be withdrawn." The total cost of the purchase and the adapting of this house is £22,500. The house has to be adapted to a certain extent for the purpose of a Legation. There is hardly any accommodation for servants; there is no garage; and there is no room for a chauffeur.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us for what the £16,000 is being paid? He says that this is very good value for the money, but that the house does not possess this, that and the next thing that we usually find as the ordinary appurtenances of a house of about £5,000 value.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This house is a most suitable house, in a suitable position for our Minister, but in order to adapt it for a man in that position representing a great country it was necessary to undertake certain additional expense. Up to now we have been paying, as I said, £1,450 a year as rent for other premises. The total expense in connection with these new premises is £22,500. If you capitalise the rent paid hitherto it means about £30,000, instead of the £22,500 which we are now proposing to spend. Therefore, there is an actual saving on the fact that we are going to purchase new premises and to discontinue the rent of the old premises.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I wish he would tell us more about this house, £22,000 seems to me a tremendous sum of money for a house that has no servants' quarters and no garage. Could he tell us, on the positive side of the matter, how many apartments there are, whether there is any ground attached to the house, and
minor points of that sort? Then this Committee would be in a position to say what the premises are worth.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information as to the exact number of rooms. My point was that this house was a very suitable house for a legation. But when a private house has suddenly to be turned into a legation, where your representative has to live, you necessarily have to make certain adaptations. You may have to alter the arrangement of the rooms so as to get proper chancellery offices. That means that you have to alter rooms in other parts of the premises. The actual adaptation in this case will cost about £5,000. We have been paying £1,450 a year as rent, and that capitalised is about £30,000. The balance, therefore, is on the right side.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would put it in a different way, £22,500 at 5 per cent. comes to £1,125. That is to say, you are saving about £350, and not the thousands mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, I have been to Helsingfors recently, on my way to the same place as he visited, namely, Russia. I took the opportunity of calling on our representative at Helsingfors, and I found that the premises in which he was accommodated were barely adequate for our representative in one of the important new countries on the Baltic. Speaking now in Another capacity as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, I would say that the saving on this proposal is some £350 a year, which represents a capitalised sum of £7,500. It is very much better that this country should have freehold premises in a place like Helsingfors, than that we should be liable to be turned out of premises at short notice by a local landlord. I am very glad indeed that this transaction has been brought about.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I wished to raise a point which may not be strictly in order, on the Vote for Public Buildings, Class with reference to the gate under the Admiralty Arch.

The CHAIRMAN: We must confine our discussion for the present to the residence in Helsingfors.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think the Committee has not been supplied with sufficient information. We are proposing to vote £17,000. The anticipated savings are in connection with other services, and will arise whether we give this Vote or not. Therefore, we are taking about £17,000 under this Vote, a sum sufficiently large to engage the attention of the Committee seriously for a few minutes. I am inclined to think that for the total sum suggested, even in a capital city, you ought to get fairly substantial premises. This Committee ought to be as careful in these matters as an ordinary municipality. An ordinary municipality, if asked to spend £17,000 on the purchase of premises, would want to see drawings of those premises. Those of us who believe in economy believe that the only way to effect economy is to examine every penny of expenditure that is submitted. Here is a proposal which seems excessive. It may be that all of us who criticise the proposal are wrong, but for the moment we are without adequate information, and we ought to have that information before we pass the Vote. We all agree that our representatives abroad ought to be housed in a way befitting the dignity of the great nation they represent. It is no fault of his that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not had the opportunity of obtaining full information to place before us. I hope, therefore, that it will be arranged for this Vote to be postponed until adequate information is forthcoming.

Mr. W. BAKER: I associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker. I am not altogether satisfied that the importance of Helsineors justifies the proposed expenditure. So far as I can ascertain, the number of British vessels entering that port in 1924 was 23, against 11 during the previous year. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be good enough to give us further information, especially with regard to the anticipated savings on other new works services.

Captain GARRO-JONES: When the Under-Secretary replies, may I ask him to answer the following questions? Why are the anticipated savings subtracted from this particular amount. I observe other Estimates. Is it because the hon. Gentleman felt that in this case there
was a certain extravagance in the amount, and that it would be as well to make some reduction? On whose ipse dixit are new premises bought in all these foreign countries? It is very natural that an ambassador or a minister of any kind should be inclined to form an exaggerated idea of his own requirements. Is there any form of outside advice which would be available in such circumstances for checking the estimates and the requirements of foreign ministers?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am very much disappointed at the way in which the Estimate has been received. The charge usually is that the Government are spending an extra amount of money. In this Vote we are actually reducing our annual expenditure. I am asked what the savings are. We are asking for £7,500 actually, as there are savings on other works. Those other new works on which we are saving are at Monte Video, Tokio and Canton. We save a considerable sum of money on those other Votes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is this house in good repair?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is in very good repair. I hope that the Committee will now give me the Vote. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) said he thought that we ought to have drawings put before this Committee. It would involve enormous labour and trouble to have drawings put up in the House in all such cases as this. I hope my hon. Friend will have confidence in the Government and that he will take it from me that in the Foreign Office we are doing our best to maintain the strictest economy with due regard to the requirements which we have to meet.

Mr. REMER: I bow to no one in my respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that does not say that I am going to accept everything that is put forward by him as the mouthpiece of the Foreign Office. We know that the hon. Gentleman's Department is notoriously extravagant, and a great many other Departments are also notoriously extravagant. To come down to the House this morning and to find over £5,000,000 worth of Supplementary Estimates, of which this is one, fills me and a great many other Members with alarm.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must speak to one Estimate only.

Mr. REMER: I intend to do that, Sir, and to speak to each one in turn. I observe that in this Supplementary Estimate there is an anticipated saving on other new works and services amounting to £9,500. I am sure that if my hon. Friend had devoted that energy to cutting down expenditure which he ought to have devoted, this figure might have been very much larger. He has told us that this building is being purchased to replace a rented building. Why are we spending capital in this way? In our present position, spending capital is a more serious thing than spending an annual sum. If we are spending capital, we have assets to put against that capital. Why, then, is the whole of the capital sum being spent in one year? In any business concern, if they were making an estimate like this, they would put the outlay to the capital account and spread it over a period of years. As we have assets against the sum which we are asked to spend, is it not reasonable to ask that at least a portion of the sum should be spread over five, six or ten years? I am not satisfied in this matter. I know that in regard to this Department, and a great many other Departments which have Supplementary Estimates, it will be said that everything possible has been done to cut down waste. A question was put to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans), which brought out the fact that certain Departmental officials receive 40 working days holidays exclusive of Sundays and Bank Holidays. I think that is most extravagant.

The CHAIRMAN: It hardly accounts for the cost of the Legation at Helsingfors.

Mr. REMER: It applies, Sir, to the anticipated saving on other new services of £9,500 which is mentioned in the Estimate, because my contention is that if these holidays were reduced to the number which is normal in business, fewer people would have been required and the saving would have been much larger.

The CHAIRMAN: If that principle of debate were admitted we should have a general discussion on every Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. REMER: That is what I would like to have, but I recognise the force of your remark, Sir. My point is that my hon. Friend might have devised means of avoiding this Supplementary Estimate altogether. My chief blame does not rest upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury but upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who talks a great deal about economy. It would be a good deal better if the right hon. Gentleman acted more in regard to economy. I would impress upon members of the Government that this matter cannot be delayed. We cannot allow this extraordinary over-expenditure to go on, and those of us who have misgivings about the financial situation—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be anticipating the speech which he will make on the introduction of the Budget.

Mr. REMER: I would like to do that also, Sir. I only wish to add that those of us who have misgivings about the financial position are determined to see that such matters as this are brought forward and discussed on every possible opportunity.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I also regard this as an extraordinary Estimate. I observe that £17,000 is to be paid for this house in Helsingfors. That is an appallingly big sum, and the only justification put forward is that the Government used to pay a big rent. If they were paying £1,400 a year as rent previously, that was far more than they ought to have paid. I do not know what house rents are in Helsingfors, but you can get an awfully big house anywhere for £1,400 a year. The fact that such a rent was paid is now quoted in order to show that this capital expenditure is a saving of money. The hon. Gentleman justifies present extravagance by past extravagance. His position reminds me of the man who rang the town bell and when asked how he knew the hours at which to ring it, said he knew them from the town clock, and when he was asked how he set the town clock, he said he did so according to the times at which he rang the town bell. I doubt whether a sum of £22,000 or even £17,000 down, is not a bigger sum than the £1,400 a year rent. Not even in
Helsingfors are houses immortal. There will be wastage. This house will probably last as long as the new houses in Scotland, but we do not know what sort of house it is. I think the demand for the production of Pans and drawings is perhaps excessive, but the hon. Gentleman ought to provide us with a photograph, because this house must be something very remarkable having regard to the price. If the same money were expended in this country it would purchase one of "the stately homes of England."

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The Under-Secretary has made two defences of this expenditure. The first is that he had an unprecedented opportunity because of the enormous reduction in the purchase price which the vendors were willing to take, and I think he quoted"the sum of half-a-million Finnish marks. The Committee may have looked upon that reduction as being substantial, but as a matter of fact it is well under £3,000 and the magnificence of the saving is somewhat reduced when that fact is appreciated. The other defence is rather peculiar. The Under-Secretary says it is a mistake to think that we are spending money at all, and that in point of fact the Committee are called upon to thank the Minister for reducing the liabilities to which the country is subject. It is a new doctrine that where an annual payment is replaced by a capital sum, we are to assume that there is a reduction because on some hypothetical basis of calculation the capital may be worked out to be a smaller figure at certain rates of interest. Before accepting that doctrine we ought to know the exact basis on which the calculation is built up. I think the hon. Gentleman said the house is freehold. Is the land freehold?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In that case we may take it that this is a permanent asset, but then there is the question of dilapidations and if this were a purchase of a house and piece of land in this country the question of sinking fund would have to be taken into account. Over and above these points there is the question of whether in 10 or 15 years time this building will be suited to the purpose for which we are obtaining it. It may be found too small. All these speculative points ought to be taken into
account. It is a new doctrine that we should spend an additional sum of £17,000 on the ground that it is really an economy. That doctrine might be applied in other fields and I doubt whether it would then be accepted by hon. Members opposite. There are many items of public expenditure which we on this side think desirable and we might maintain that expenditure on these matters represented economies—one case for instance is that of education—but hon. Members opposite would not agree with us.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I think the amount of the estimate is very large for the purpose stated. We have recently been told—and we realise the truth of the statement—that by great economy and heavy taxation this country has returned to a gold basis and brought the £ sterling back to par. We are told also that we gain when we purchase things in foreign countries where less sacrifices have been made and where the taxation has not been so heavy. It would seem by that reasoning that this sum of £22,500 sterling represents a much larger sum in Helsingfors. What is the equivalent in Finnish marks of this very large sum of British capital? If it seems large to us, it must be very much larger when rendered into whatever is the equivalent in Helsingfors.

5.0 P.M.

Commander WILLIAMS: Naturally most thinking people in the House rejoice in the fact that the Government are going to have a permanent house in this town in a new country, so that British interests can gradually be built up round the legation. It must be obvious that is not extravagance and I should have allowed this Vote to pass without any comment but for one very suspicious fact. When we were told that the British Government in this matter had made a good bargain in a foreign country I became suspicious. The British Government makes good bargains when it is taxing its own citizens but very rarely does the British Government make a good bargain with the taxpayers in other countries. When I heard that statement I was reminded of what used to happen four or five years ago. Then if there happened to be a piece of particular extravagance, we were always
treated to a wonderful dissertation on the advantages of the extra expenditure. However, I will not go into that. I should like to know clearly what has been put aside for depreciation in connection with the purchase of these premises, and, in the second place, who paid for the upkeep previous to our purchasing it. I should like to know who paid for the upkeep when we were tenants. It is unfair to say that you have made a saving of £350 if in the old days we had a landlord who paid a great deal towards keeping this old building in a first-class state of repair. I think we ought to know who paid for its upkeep in the old days and also have some sort of estimate as to depreciation.

Mr. GILLETT: There is one question I should like to ask the Under-Secretary. When he speaks of a saving, does he mean that the expenditure on this building is being disposed of during the next financial year or does he really mean that there as an actual saving? I notice there is an item for the rebuilding of the Embassy in Tokio at a cost, I think, of about £300,000. Nothing has been spent before this year on this scheme, and the Minister now tells us that the whole of this scheme is being given up. The effect of that policy would be, of course, a saving. On the other hand, if he means that the scheme is delayed, then it is only a postponement of the expenditure for a few months. I should like to know whether that is the real interpretation of his speech when he talks about saving or whether we are to have any real saving on the scheme?

Major PRICE: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether, before the price was agreed upon for this particular building in Helsingfors, the opinion of a competent person was obtained as to its value?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like the Under-Secretary to address himself to the questions which were put to him by the hon. Member for Bridgetown (Mr. Maxton), which he has not yet answered to our satisfaction. I should like him to tell us how much was actually paid for this building. It does not appear in this Estimate; and I should also like to know the sum estimated to put it into a decent state of repair. If all we have got is what the Under-Secretary described then we have only bought a shell, we have
only bought walls. I should like to know whether we have, in fact, bought a house. It is also certainly well for us to know what sum the actual alteration will cost and the size of this house. It is said that we shall save £1,100 or £1,300 which we have hitherto paid as rent. But it may be argued that we have been paying far too much in rent, therefore it is no reason for arguing that we should now buy this particular building. The least we expected was that the Under-Secretary would have told us what it is exactly they have bought and the actual size of the house. His reply may be reassuring to hon. Members opposite, but it is not reassuring to us. We have no confidence in the Government. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims to be saving about £9,500 but at the same time he is spending £17,000. If that is what is called economy then the economists in the Government are left-handed.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope the Committee will allow this Vote to go through after I have answered the questions that have been addressed to me. The Committee, I am sure, does not think I am spending money on something which is quite unnecessary. After all this proposed expenditure is most desirable. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) seems to think I am answering for the Foreign Office. Really, I am answering for the Office of Works. The Office of Works are not in the least responsible for the policy that may be laid down by the Foreign Office. All we have to do when we are asked to see that there is a proper Legation at Helsingfors is to carry out the work as economically and as efficiently as possible. What did we do? We sent an architect to Helsingfors to look into the whole question. He is a very experienced man. He went out to Helsingfors, saw these premises and also other premises, and when he had this offer he made a provisional bargain, came back to the Office of Works and reported that it was a good bargain and that the premises were very suitable for the purpose for which they were intended, although they would require a little alteration. Do hon. Members suggest that we should have neglected the advice given us by the architect? I think it would have been most extraordinary. The hon. Member for the
Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) asked me a question about savings. It is perfectly true that the savings in this Estimate are not what we should call permanent savings. They are savings for this year owing to certain unavoidable delays in carrying out works of construction abroad. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) also asked whether a sum for depreciator was included in the amount. As a matter of fact it has never been the practice of the Department to put in any amount for depreciation.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: May I ask the Under-Secretary if there is any reason for this practice?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that. It never has been done, no sums for depreciation are included in the calculations. The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay also asked whether we had been paying for the upkeep of the building. Yes. There were other questions put to me which I thought I had covered in my first statement. It is not correct to say that we have purchased a shell. The house is a perfectly suitable building, with certain adaptations, for a Legation, and these alterations will cost about £5,000. It is a very suitable and substantial house, in first-class condition, but if it is turned into a Legation accommodation will have to be found for an extra number of people and the Chancellery offices, and you have also to build a garage. As I have answered all questions of this kind before, I hope the Committee will now allow us to have the Vote.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before the Question is put, may I ask this question? If we have gone to the trouble to send out an architect to make an inquiry, then there must be some report. Will the Under-Secretary tell us the dimensions of this building, the nature of the interior and the amount of ground which is attached to it? We have not had this yet, and I am going to oppose this Vote until we get this information.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am sure the Committee does not want to divide against a Vote of this kind. It is a perfectly reasonable Estimate, and I will
try and get the details asked for by the Report stage. I am afraid I have not got them at the moment.

Mr. MAXTON: I am always ready to listen to kindly appeals from the Front Bench, but this is the first Supplementary Estimate. It is the beginning of a new Parliamentary year during which we shall have to consider the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds, and I can imagine the same type of appeal being made to us: "Oh, let this go through; we can assure you it is quite all right." I have not, been used to the spending of huge sums of money, but to pay £17,000 for a building in a place like Finland seems to me to be a large amount. I sometimes read advertisements of houses for sale, and when I read the specifications of a house for sale I find that you can get a good house situated in a, central part of London, much less in Helsingfors, for a sum of money like £17,000. I have asked twice in the course of this Debate for the acreage in which this, house stands. I have asked also whether it is centrally situated, how many apartments there are; and all I am told is that it is a good substantial building, generally suitable for the purpose. I am not told a single solitary thing that a business man would like to know. We are told what it is not. We are told what it has not got; that it compares favourably with the building we previously had. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether it is the same expert who advised us to take the leasehold of the building, which he now says is not worth £1,200 a year, who is now advising us that this building that we are asked to build is value for the money?
I think our attitude towards this first Supplementary Estimate is going to be decided with reference to our attitude on future Supplementary Estimates and Estimates, and I am not prepared to accept the nice explanations of the hon. Member opposite. I recognise that he is in an unfortunate position, being asked to deal with another man's Estimates, but, from another point of view, he is specially qualified to look after this Estimate, because it is an Office of Works expenditure necessitated by Foreign Office demands, and he, I think, is probably the only man in the House who, during the year when these negotiations
were in progress, has been definitely associated with both these Departments. Therefore, he cannot make a plea ad misericordiam, I think is the correct phrase. He cannot beg to be excused on the ground that he has no responsibility in the one Department, because he has had responsibility in both Departments, and I think he ought, instead of forcing this to the Division which I think is very likely to take place, either to get something in the nature of a specification of this place, giving us some definite idea of the size of the house, the amount of the land, and the situation of the house, or else withdraw the Vote until some more convenient season. Although my speech is finished, if it will aid the hon. Member in carrying his consultation through to a successful conclusion, I will go on and offer him congratulations on his recent transfer—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member could not do that.

Mr. MAXTON: I accept your ruling, under this particular Estimate.

Mr. W. BAKER: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) made one of the most important points possible in the course of the discussion, because he elicited the statement from the Minister that the items marked "Savings" are not savings at all, but merely postponed expenditure, and I want to ask that we may be given -an assurance that in future Estimates it will be made perfectly clear whether a reduced expenditure is due to savings or merely to postponement. I should also like to ask one small point with regard to the policy of the Department regarding architects. I understand that an architect went to Helsingfors in order to report on this building. May I ask whether, in the case of the postponed works which were enumerated by the Minister, the architect was sent to Tokio and elsewhere in order to report as to the desirability of postponing? One final point The figure of £22,500, is, I think, enormous, having regard to the greatly depreciated currency in Finland. If I understand the matter aright, the Finnish mark was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 to the £ in pre-War days, and, taking a rough figure, it is now somewhere in the neighbourhood of 190—between 189 and 190—and I say that that
depreciation of currency has to be borne in mind when you are endeavouring to fix the value of this house.

Major CRAWFURD: There is one consideration which has not been brought forward in the course of this brief discussion, and that is that it seems to me to be improper that a sum of money like this should have appeared in the Supplementary Estimates at all. I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxtor), who said that he was not himself accustomed to deal—nor am I—with thousands of pounds, but it seems to me that £22,000 is a, large sum of money for a Legation building in a town of the size and importance of Helsingfors. Quite a-part from that, it seems to me that this being a capital sum, a sum of money for a service which is going to extend over a number of years, it should not be the kind of sum to appear in a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) drew a distinction in responsibility in this matter between the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot accept that distinction at all, and I think it is largely the responsibility of the Financial Secretary, who was then in the Foreign Office. It was his business, presumably, to prepare the Estimates for the year, and his officials ought surely to have known that this purchase was or might be in contemplation, but they failed to present to this House the expenditure of a comparatively large capital sum in the Estimates for the year, leaving it to be presented in a Supplementary Estimate, where, as is obvious from the Debate we have had, the actual sum to be expended is wrapped up and concealed by a number of other items which confuse the real amount at stake. As has been said by a previous speaker, if this House during the Session is going to take a, proper line on questions of economy and scrutinise every small item, I hope this will be pressed to a Division as a protest against this type of Vote being brought forward as a, Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: An hon. Member opposite made a suggestion that one ought to differentiate in the Esti-
mates between savings that were permanent and temporary savings. I will make a note of that suggestion, and see what might be done, possibly, in the future. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), we have got plans at the Office of Works and reports showing the nature of the negotiations and the transaction. I have never heard of a request before in this House that plans of this nature should be produced—I do not say they ought not to be produced—but if the hon. Gentleman thinks the plans ought to be seen before the Vote is finally passed, I will guarantee that we will produce plans to the House on the Report stage, and will show them to hon. Members who may wish to see them.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure that, after the discussion we have had and the courteous explanation given by the hon. Member who has just sat down, he will not take it amiss from us if we vote against him on this Estimate. These Supplementary Estimates are now becoming the curse of the financial year, and we cannot take too early an opportunity of protesting against them. We are glad to hear there are so many hon. Members on the other side who have taken this matter to heart, and we hope they will go into the Lobby with us on this question.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: In the hope of shortening the discussion on these Estimates and others, may I say that it seems to me that a large number of hon. Members who have addressed the Committee to-day seem to be under a misapprehension as to the nature of the public accounts? The public accounts of this country are cash accounts; they are year to year accounts, and that is the reason, if I may be allowed to offer the explanation which my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench did not offer, in regard to the question about depreciation. You cannot have questions of depreciation entering into these Estimates when they are cash accounts from year to year.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I feel constrained to speak in consequence of what fell from the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who intimated that the Supplementary Esti-
mates were really becoming the curse—I think his expression was—of our finance. I venture to take a very different view, because, as he knows., and as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who has just made a most apposite remark on the nature of our finance, is also aware, but as many hon. Members of the House do not seem to be aware, nothing would be more easy than to avoid Supplementary Estimates. It is the easiest thing in the world. All you have to do is to over-estimate. I do not know that I should be in order in referring generally to these Supplementary Estimates, but I should have no difficulty whatever in showing that they are, so far from being, as my right hon. Friend says, a curse, a most healthy sign in our finance. I could show, if I had the opportunity—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Member cannot take the opportunity just now of ranging all over the public accounts.

Mr. McNEILL: I realise that and regret it very much, and I will not say

more than that I think, as the various Votes are reviewed by the Committee, they will find that the reason, and the only reason, why we are having this Vote, and almost all the Votes which will be subsequently examined, is because we are now so closely estimating that we are getting back to the accuracy which prevailed almost invariably before the War, but which has been very largely departed from in recent years, with very bad results. I hope the Committee will take the view that the reason why we are having these Supplementary Estimates is simply because the Government have resolved this year—and these Votes are a proof of it—that they would not put on the taxpayer a 6d. more than was absolutely necessary, and that they would rather come to this House again for a Supplementary Vote than take too much at the beginning of the year, with the consequence that the money would have to be surrendered at the end of the year.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 130.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[5.29 p.m.


Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fielden, E. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forrest, W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Atkinson, C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gee, Captain R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Grant, J. A.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Berry, Sir George
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gretton, Colonel John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grotrian, H. Brent


Blundell, F. N.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harland, A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Daizlel, Sir Davison
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Sornerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Burman, J. B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hills, Major John Walter


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
England, Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holt, Captain H. P.


Campbell, E. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Homan, C. W. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Huntingfleid, Lord
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Storry-Deans, R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Templeton, W. P.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Plicher, G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tinne, J. A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Preston, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Radford, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Raine, W.
Waddington, R.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Loder, J. de V.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Looker, Herbert William
Remer, J. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lougher, L.
Remnant, Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watts, Dr. T.


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wells, S. R.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macintyre, I.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.- Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Wise, Sir Fredric


Malone, Major P. B.
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wemersley, W. J.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Merriman, F. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moles, Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Major Cope and Captain


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Baker, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.


Barnes, A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barr, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Owen, Major G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Clowes, S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Connolly, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scurr, John


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lindley, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Reilox)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.




Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Windsor, Walter


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Westwood, J.
Wright, W.


Thurtle, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Townend, A. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Varley, Frank B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Allen Parkinson.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending un the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: This Estimate is for a very much greater amount than the one which the Committee have just passed, and there is a very great scarcity of information in the Paper which has been issued as to what it is for. We can understand such items as "New Works, Alterations and Additions," or "Unemployment Relief Works," but there is an item upon which I require some information if the hon. Member in charge of the Estimate will be good enough to give it. I find there was an original Estimate for Furniture of £49,310, and that that has gone up by no less a sum than £17,500. That is an enormous increase, which indicates either very bad estimating, or that prices have gone up against the Government in this respect, or that they have had to meet some expenditure which they did not foresee. I think the Committee are entitled to know what it is that this £17,500 is in respect of. One reason why I am suspicious of this sum is that it is a round figure. When one talks of money it ought to be an exact sum in pounds, shillings and pence. One is rather suspicious of an increase of such a peculiarly round sum as £17,500 on £49,310. It is a curious kind of figure, and it is on furniture, that is to say, on such things as chairs and tables, I suppose, each of which in itself represents a small sum of money.
I am a comparatively new Member of this House, but my view of our functions, if I may respectfully say so is that we should all be watch-dogs for the taxpayer, policemen, or anything you like, which is synonymous with vigilance, and it is our bounden duty
to scrutinise most carefully such Supplementary Estimates as these. I do not want to nag or criticise the Government, because the Government have no more loyal supporter than myself, but I do think that when it comes to money, then, despite all loyalty, despite all friendship, despite all sentiment, we must approach the matter with hard heads, and however much we may respect the people who put forward these Estimates, we must ask them to justify those Estimates, and I am asking the hon. Member in charge of these Supplementary Estimates to justify to this Committee the increased sum of £17,500 on furniture. There are many of us on this side who are determined to back the Government in its economy campaign, and this is the first step towards it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is beginning a discussion which, if I allowed it to continue, would spread, and there would be little progress.

Mr. DEANS: I have no desire to do that in any way, but I think this is a matter not merely of detail, but of very vital principle, and I should be very glad to hear the hon. Member's explanation.

Mr. W. BAKER: I have no doubt whatever that the procedure which is being followed on this Vote is the normal procedure, but I should like, if I may, to express my regret that no sort of explanation has been offered to the Committee with regard to this Vote.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The reason I did not get up straight away was because I thought it would be much more convenient that hon. Members should state first what information they desired.

Mr. BAKER: My feeling is that an explanatory statement from the Minister at the commencement of the discussion would provide information which, if anything like reasonable, would shorten the proceedings very considerably. Now that I have risen, perhaps the hon. Member
will forgive me if I ask one or two questions on matters in which I am interested. I should be extremely glad if he would indicate to us the nature and situation of the new works, the names and situation of the relief telephone exchanges, and particularly the types, of work which have been untilised for the employment of unemployed persons. I hope he will endeavour to give us as much information as possible with regard to the third item, because my own feeling is that the Post Office and the Government have not done everything possible to use unemployed persons to accelerate this side of their activity.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This sum of money for which we are asking to-day is owing to expenses of Post Office and Telegraph buildings. In the main Estimate, the House agreed to all the main items which we want, but there was a great pressure for gutting down expenditure, and the Office of Works deducted from the main Estimate a sum of no less than £90,000 with the desire to effect economy. As a matter of fact, that proved to be too drastic. It was really found that it did not allow a margin for contingencies in this matter of expenditure on Post Office and Telegraph buildings. Therefore £18,600 of this sum is merely a restoration of the old deduction. We have continually received complaints that Post Offices throughout the country were in a bad condition, were in need of repairs, and that as postal business continued to grow there was need to meet that growth. Maintenance and repairs account for £43,700. Last year when I represented in this matter the Home Office I was continually asked by hon. Members oppposite, and hon. Members behind me too, to meet the bad conditions of post office premises throughout the country. Some of the money for which we are now asking is to meet the complaints that were made that at Christmas time that there was not accommodation for the enormous amount of work that had to be done. I would repeat to hon. Members that certain of this money was for work arranged for by the Office of Works for 1924–25 but which was not finished in time to go into the accounts for that particular year.
As to the questions asked regarding the provision of work for the unemployed,
a Cabinet sub-Committee from time to time circularises the Departments asking them to undertake such works as are possible in the way of unemployment relief. We are always trying to do our best to give as much of this work as possible.

Mr. W. BAKER: Could the hon. Gentleman not explain to the Committee upon what work exactly the unemployed persons are employed and what is the expenditure upon it?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is a question of employing as many people as we can, in a proper way. We have to distribute them over all parts of the particular work in hand. I cannot exactly say on what particular Post Office they are employed, or who exactly are the people who are employed.

Mr. AMMON: Is there any practice of making a survey over a fairly wide field to ascertain what Post Offices axe inadequate or out, of date, and also sitting down and planning forward the scale of work that, can be carried through?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Oh, yes, certainly. Much the same answer applies to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr, Storry-Deans). Most of the work is due to the large public demand for increased postal facilities; to meet that growing demand which is ever growing, and also new postal services. There are savings, hon. Members will see, of £20,900. I am glad to say that a large part of these savings are not temporary, but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend on the last Estimate, they are permanent savings owing to the fact that we made much more favourable contracts than we anticipated. We made good contracts for coal and other fuel, and we were thus able to save about £78,000. I think that practically covers all that is necessary by way of reply. In respect, however, to the matter mentioned I by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), it is a small question of accounts.

Mr. T. THOMSON: If we turn to Unemployment Relief Works, we find that the original Estimate was £4,450 and the revised Estimate £9,750, leaving the additional sum required at £5,300. No valid
reasons have been given why the expenditure was not proceeded with. Experience has shown, quite rightly, that this year a sum larger than that of the prey ions year is needed. That you would naturally expect, because the demand for the employment in relief work is certainly greater this year than it was last year. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they had been revising the work and examining what work should be put in hand in order to relieve the unemployed, yet we are told that these works, carried out last year, really finished off the work that was estimated for in 1924–25. He did not tell us what other work was in hand last year. In view of the many complaints that we get of inadequate telephone service, accommodation at the Post Offices, and inefficient Post Office services, it is very useful to employ the unemployed in order to make the necessary additions to the services. Instead of apologising to the House for the amount of excess, the hon. Gentleman ought rather to have been congratulated on the excess, even if had been larger. It would have been infinitely better to employ these men in extending further the national services than giving them money in the way it has been given to them. I hope that in the Estimates for the coming year the Departments will have regard to this aspect of the question, and that there will be a larger employment of the unemployed than in the last year.

Mr. GILLETT: The Minister in his statement referred to the reductions in the Estimates. It is quite true that the original Estimates showed a reduction of £20,000 under the head of Post Office, but the Estimates altogether showed an increase of £169,000. While I am not anxious to scrutinise these items if the money has been usefully spent especially in relief work for the unemployed, there are one or two points on which I think one might put a few questions. If we take the headings: Total for New Works, the original Estimates show an increase of expenditure of £72,000 this year compared with last year. Now the Minister is asking for a further £18,600. I would like to ask in connection with this new further expenditure if it means that work in the Post Offices is being pressed forward. I understand that the work that has been in hand relates among other things to Post Offices in London,
and I would ask whether he can explain some of this expenditure under the third head: Maintenance and Repairs.
The original Estimate showed an increase of £80,000 on the year. I would draw the attention of the Committee, especially of hon. Members who are interested in economy, to these figures. The expenditure under this heading, for London, as compared with the previous year, is £149,000 against £111,000, and for the country £125,000 against £16,000; and £24,000 as against £16,000. The Maintenance and Repairs Estimates are £300,950, against £219,500. These are the increases in the original Estimates. Now we find that there is a further demand for £43,700, and yet no information is given under these headings as to what it means. While there are footnotes dealing with other items, there is no information as to what this means. We do not know whether these are works, or what kind of works they are. I should like the Minister to give us some further information justifying this large increase in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have answered these questions before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!" In regard to Mount Pleasant, I am glad to be able to state that unexpectedly good progress has been made there.

6.0 P.M.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: To reinforce what has been said by an hon. Member beside me regarding the unemployment relief, it is known that one of the Palliatives for unemployment is the acceleration or retardation of public works according to the state of the labour market. An enormous Vote of this kind obviously gives an opportunity for creating that margin. At the present time it is greatly needed owing to the large number of people out of work, but it appears it has only been created to the extent of £9,000 or £10,000 on an Estimate of nearly £1,500,000. I am not quite clear whether the Department is striving to create it now or striving to cut it down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy which he always shows to inquirers, would make it clear whether, in the Supplementary Estimate, these arrears of maintenance work to be put in hand this winter—this £5,300 of additional work—are an addition, or whether it is that the bills have come in this year for work
undertaken last year? If I am right in supposing that the work as described was undertaken in the winter of 1924–25, it comes to this, that in that winter we provided about £14,000 in an attempt to absorb some of the men out of work, and that in the winter of 1925–26 that £14,000 was reduced to £4,000. I am quite sure the Department, conscious of the great need of finding work for the men, would have no desire so to narrow the margin which I have described.
I have two questions to ask. Is it the policy of the Department which the hon. Gentleman represents to reduce that margin, which is intended to assist unemployment? Secondly, may we take it that the amount of such work put in hand in 1924–25 is, with the Supplementary Estimate, £14,000, and that this year it has actually been reduced to £400?

Mr. W. BAKER: I am very much afraid that on this Vote, as on the previous one, the reference to savings was quite misleading. As I understand it, £90,000 was deducted from the proposed Estimate not because the works on which that money would have been expended were not urgently required, but because the Cabinet insisted that an economy of those dimensions should be made. Experience has proved that, despite the utmost desire for economy, £18,000 of that £90,000 must be spent, and the point I submit is that to refer to financial transactions of this type as savings is misleading. The whole expenditure of that £90,000, which was originally thought to be the value of the work which must be put in hand, will have to be incurred by the Government Departments concerned, and the postponement will' not only fail to be a, saving, but, as a result of the postponement, greatly increased expenditure will be incurred in many cases. I want to point out that these attempts at economy have been largely directed towards Post Office buildings and Post Office accommodation. I welcome the assurance given by the hon. Gentleman that everything possible will be done to expedite the erection of the second portion of the building at. Mount Pleasant. There has been a very great deal of avoidable delay with regard to the buildings on that site, and to my knowledge large numbers of men
have been forced to work in underground apartments with continuous artificial light, to the detriment of their eyes and the detriment of the work. I submit that many new offices are urgently necessary, and that constructive work of this type will be beneficial in the present state of unemployment and an undoubted advantage to the Government Departments concerned.
The Office of Works have been too much inclined to follow a hand-to-mouth policy in this matter. It has been the custom to ignore immediate future requirements, and to endeavour to stint as far as possible even the immediate necessities of the Department. Despite the necessity for economy, the Office of Works ought to have regard to the growth of the public Departments, and in the case of the Post Office should be aware that there is a real possibility of immediate further extensions of public business in the shape of the cash-on-delivery system and the postal cheque system. During recent year the growth of the Pensions Ministry, the growth of National Health Insurance, and similar activities, has greatly increased the demand upon space In post office premises, and I am quite certain that any attempt to postpone expenditure of the balance of £90,000 for many months longer will only result in disaster to the efficiency of the Department. During the discussion on the Post Office Estimates last year I referred to the condition of the post office premises in Bristol. The sorting-office at Preston is part of the railway station, and it is an extremely undesirable situation, seeing that it is open to the whole of the smoke and soot inseparable from a station of that size and character. The entrance to the office is altogether inadequate.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: May I ask, Captain FitzRoy, what this has got to do with this Supplementary Estimate? I cannot follow it in the least.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member is travelling a little wide of the mark, but the Estimate is certainly vague and difficult to understand.

Mr. BAKER: I submit, with very great respect, that the Vote we are discussing refers to certain
New Works, Alterations and Additions,
and as part of the explanation we are told that a deduction of £90,000 was made from the original Estimates, of which £18,000 is to be restored in this Supplementary Estimate, and my complaint is that that deduction of £90,000 was improperly made, and that as a result—

Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order. My point is now perfectly clear. We are not asked to vote this £90,000, and the contention of the hon. Member is that we ought to vote that £90,000.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite true that the £90,000 has already gone, and, therefore, we cannot go into that, but I am bound to say the Vote is a little vague the Under-Secretary will explain what the items are for, perhaps I can confine the Debate within narrower limits.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The difficulty is that the expression "New works" is rather a misnomer. New works mean also works in progress—which have already been begun—and this additional sum which we ask for is a restoration of a portion of the sum originally deducted. We have found it has had to be used for certain works that are in progress all of which are in connection with the main Estimates but it would have been very difficult to give the whole of those works in this Supplementary Estimate. They are not absolutely new works ab initio, but they are, in their entirety, works already in progress. In regard to the post office at Preston, I have made a note of that, and I will look into it. In regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) said, the sum taken for unemployment relief is the remainder of the sum required to carry out the particular programme laid down for unemployment in the winter of 1924–25. In this present winter we have dealt with the matter in another way. There has been less unemployment so far as skilled labour in the building trade is concerned, and we have absorbed a good deal of unemployed labour under the heading:
O.—Maintenance and repairs.
on which we have spent, and for which we are asking, a very large sum, so that as a matter of fact we have been able to absorb a great deal of unemployed labour.

Captain BENN: So one may take it there is an increase and not a reduction over last year's expenditure?

Mr. BAKER: In the absence of a ruling to the contrary, I can only assume that my endeavours to keep in order have been successful, and that on this Supplementary Estimate we are entitled to seek information and to make statements with regard to the items therein. I accepted the phrase "New Works" as being a statement of fact. This Vote, dealing as it does with new works, repairs and maintenance, gave us the opportunity, I thought, to ask for information regarding various aspects of that work. The Under-Secretary has been kind enough to say he will have inquiries made with regard to Preston, and, therefore, I will say no more about that, in the hope that I shall remove any hurt I have inflicted upon the hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish, however, to ask two or three further questions regarding buildings, in the hope that the Under-Secretary will be willing to make inquiries in those cases, also. On 2nd March, 1925, we were promised that a new sorting office should be built at Leicester, because of the inadequacy of the existing buildings. I should be very grateful if we could be told what has been done about that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would obviously not be in order for every Member to ask questions about particular post offices. That, obviously, would be out of order. The only matters before the Committee are the actual items that appear on this Paper.

Mr. AMMON: May I put it to you that as there is a sum of money down here for new works, maintenance, repairs, etc., with no details, that an hon. Member has a right to seek information as to how that money is to be expended, indicating places where he thinks there is room for new erections or repairs? Surely we shall be unable to get information or to pursue the Debate except on those lines?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The proper time to make those remarks is on the Post Office Vote.

Mr. AMMON: I submit, Captain FitzRoy, that the Committee has a right to know how the money we are voting is to be expended. We have no information on this Vote to show us how the money is to be expended, and unless we
can elicit such information by question and answer the Committee will pass this Vote blindly.

Major CRAWFURD: You, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, have already suggested that this Estimate is obscure in the form in which it is presented, and that obscurity is not relieved by the absence of both the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, who are concerned with this particular Department whose expenditure we are discussing. As even hon. Members opposite have failed to follow the course of the Debate because of this obscurity, may I ask that this Vote should be withdrawn and introduced in a more understandable form later when the Members of the Government concerned may be present in order to throw some light upon these questions.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The reason this Supplementary Estimate seems rather vague is that the sum of money we asking for is spread over the whole area of maintenance. Hon. Members have evidently not got the main Estimates before them, but, if they will refer to those Estimates, they will find that the sum we asking for is spread over the whole field. In the main Estimates we tried to make cuts to carry out the demands of the Treasury, and in regard to some items we made too big a cut. We are now asking for this Estimate to make good that deficiency, and we are spreading it over the whole area.

Mr. AMMON: I submit that the Debate is quite in order in ranging over the whole area.

Mr. W. BAKER: I respectfully submit that there can be no doubt whatever that it is perfectly in order to question the Under-Secretary with regard to individual post offices, because this is a question which must have been submitted to him. The questions which I wish to put are as follows: On 2nd March, 1925, it was definitely promised that a new sorting office should be erected at Leicester, because the existing premises were, and are, quite inadequate. On the 24th of March, 1925, it was also announced that a new site had been purchased for a post office at Mitcham, and I should be very glad to know whether that site has been utilised, and, if not, what has been done in the meantime?
On 19th November, 1925, it was announced that a new sorting office would be erected at Withington, Manchester, to serve Didsbury and district.
My final question is with regard to Tottenham. It was decided that the existing post office accommodation at Tottenham was altogether inadequate, and the local authorities offered to the Office of Works part of their very fine central library in order that adequate postal facilities might be provided for that district without undue expense to the Government. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether that offer has been accepted, and what steps the Department are prepared to take in order that the people of Tottenham may have the facilities to which they are properly entitled.

Mr. HARRIS: I am more concerned about the care of the public purse. These are very large commitments, and I want to be satisfied that the Post Office, in asking contracts, take care to see that they do not under estimate. It is clear from the statement of the Under-Secretary that there has been some underestimating, and, therefore, it is important to see that the greatest care is taken by the parties to get proper estimates on fixed figures, because once you allow the figures to be exceeded, contracts that seem reasonable, and developments that seem sound and on strict business lines turn out in the end to be extravagant. After all, a post office is run' to make a profit, and the Post Office is frequently given as an example of successful State enterprise. Therefore, we are anxious to see that such concerns should be run efficiently, and the best guarantee against waste and the best way to ensure success is that the Government should take care to get their estimates on business lines by taking comparative tenders, and they ought to see that the figures which are given to the Committee are adhered to and not exceeded.
I wish to allude to the Post Office tube which we discussed about two years ago. The question is still before the Committee, and the tube is by no means finished. This tube was to give great relief to London traffic, expedite the delivery of letters, and give a much more efficient service by the Post Office. Anybody who has had any experience of the
delivery of letters in recent years in London will agree with me when I say that that delivery is not nearly so good as it used to be. I want to know how far there has been progress with this tube? Is it working, or is it anywhere near completion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot find anything in this Estimate about the tube.

Mr. HARRIS: This Estimate is to cover certain works, and the tube is one of those works. The Vote we are discussing covers alterations and additions to new works, and I have reason to believe that the tube is included; in fact, it is the biggest new work the Post Office has in hand.

Captain EDEN: Surely the hon. Member opposite is out of order in suggesting that we should spend more money.

Mr. HARRIS: Not at all. We have had great experience on the London County Council in making sewers, and anybody knows—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like an expression of opinion from the Under-Secretary as to whether this tube is included in this Vote.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, it is not in the Vote. When I spoke about the cut of £90,000 in last year's Estimates, I explained that we made that cut in order to effect the economies desired by the Treasury. That cut was too much, and now we have to restore a certain amount of it. The sum we are asking for is spread over the entire year on all the works now in progress, and the total sum is made up by calculating throughout the area the savings and the extra expenditure. Taking the whole area, we are making certain savings in certain parts and extra, expenditure in others, and it is impossible to say how much has been allocated in any particular part of the area. To get a general view you have to look at the main Estimates and the various items, and I do not think you Can do it in any other way. I am sure that I should be pulled up by the Deputy-Chairman if I attempted to answer the questions which have been put to me.

Mr. HARRIS: I accept the Under-Secretary's statement, and if he assures me that no more money is being spent on this tube I am satisfied.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any of this money has been spent on a post office in his own constituency? I happen to have a close knowledge of the hon. Member's constituency, which is a very large and prosperous one, and very well represented in the House of Commons. For many years past I was a member of the urban district council in that arca, and we were concerned in an agitation last year in which we complained to the Post Office and the Postmaster-General that a large and prosperous locality like Wood Green had to be satisfied with its Central Post Office accommodation with a disused butcher's shop. I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he can say whether any of this money has yet been spent in order to convert this disused butcher's shoo into a sort of post office that the hon. Member ought to have for the constituency which he represents.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is the sort of question which other hon. Members have been putting to me and it is impossible for me to answer them. I am not able to say that we have allocated any particular sum to any particular building, but the hon. Member opposite may rest assured that I shall do my best to see that my own district is properly served in this respect.

Mr. FENBY: I think we ought to have the Committee placed in possession of some of these details, because we must have them before we can understand what we are voting this money for. Therefore, I think this Vote ought to stand over until we can have some representatives of the particular Department concerned present to give us the information.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not able to add anything to the explanations which I have already given.

Mr. FENBY: I know the Under-Secretary has given all the information he possesses on these questions, and he is in a very difficult position in which he ought not to be put, because the responsible officials ought to be here. I know the hon. Gentleman is doing his
best, but he ought to have the assistance of somebody else with expert knowledge on these questions.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been in very close contact with my advisers, and it is not that I have not the information, but I am assured that it is impossible so to split up this amount of money, which has been arrived at by savings here and expenditure there, as to be able to allocate any particular part of it to any item in the Estimate.

Colonel GRETTON: I only want to make one or two general remarks on this Estimate. It is disappointing to find that the estimation has not been successful, but that there is a very considerable excess over the original sum, and that, as the Under-Secretary has explained, it is impossible, from the information which he is able to give us, or from that which is in our possession, to trace how the excess has arisen. I understand that this Vote is presented by the Office of Works, and not by the Post Office. The Office of Works, of course, is responsible to the Post Office for carrying out work required by the Post Office, and the Office of Works has to see that it is carried out efficiently and at the least possible cost. I should like to ask whether the responsibility for the excess which is now asked for is due to bad estimating by the Office of Works, or to an increase in the demands of the Post Office in respect of new requirements, which has swollen the Estimate. Otherwise, it is a purely technical matter. The Office of Works, as a contractor, has made a bad estimate of its cost. In the case of a contract, the contractor has to stand the racket, as the saying is. In this case, where the Office of Works is responsible for the Post Office, surely this is a very inconvenient way in which to present a Vote. The Post Office ought really to be responsible for the whole of the expenditure, and the Office of Works ought not to appear in the matter at all. The question that I want to put to my hon. Friend is this: Is the Office of Works presenting an adjustment of a bad estimate, or is it meeting increased requirements for work that is required to be done by the Post Office?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I wanted also to raise the point which has been
alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). The original Estimate, I take it, was an Office of Works Estimate, and not a Post Office Estimate at all, and, if this money does not appear in the Post Office Estimate, it means that we cannot really discuss these expenditures at all, because, directly we ask for information or details, we are ruled out of order as discussing a matter of policy. As, however, it does not appear in the Post Office Estimates, therefore when the Post Office Estimates come forward, we have nothing before us to criticise. This is the general method by which the Departments work inter-Departmentally in order to get through these various sums of money without the reason for them being adequately discussed in the House of Commons. I do think the Committee might turn their attention to that point, which is really a point of policy in regard to the whole of these Estimates.
In this case we have the Minister, not through any fault of his own, saying, "I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you anything about it." If we are really going to get any economy at all, we must stop this method of Government Departments juggling with their figures and putting the House of Commons into this absurd position. What it really comes to is that the Executive are making fools of the House of Commons, and I think it is time that something was done. I may be wrong in my contention that these amounts were never originally in the Post Office Vote. If they were originally in the Post Office Vote, my argument goes by the board, but I understand that they were not. I have made various inquiries, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they were never in the original Post Office Vote. If my contention is correct, then I say that this method of presenting Supplementary Estimates is simply making fools of the Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Of course, I must not try to defend the Post Office, because that would be completely out of order, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) talks as though these main items had never been before the House.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: No; my contention is that these items, when they
were presented to the House, were presented in the Office of Works Estimate, and not in the Post Office Estimate. On the Office of Works Estimate we are not allowed to discuss Post Office policy, and when Post Office policy is discussed, these items are not in the Post Office Vote, so that they cannot be discussed.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is quite open to hon. Members to do what I should myself naturally do, and what I am sure other Members would do, namely, to take the Estimates of the Office of Works and look at these items, and, when the Post Office Vote comes up, they can quite easily ask the Postmaster-General why he is 'not doing this, or why he is leaving out that. After all, the whole programme is in the main Estimates that were passed by the House only a very short time ago. The only reason for the increase for which we are now asking is that there has been rather more speeding-up of the programme passed by the House. From time to time building is slack, and you cannot get on the weather prevents you. At other times the weather is better, and other conditions are more favourable, and building can be speeded up, and in that case more money is spent. The whole of this programme, however, has been passed by the House item by item, and this need for additional money is due to the fact that the programme has been carried out rather more rapidly than we anticipated.

Mr. AMMON: I was called to order by the Chairman for saying exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was turned down on the ground that on the Post Office Vote I had no right to discuss building. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that we should go through certain Votes and pick out certain items and bring them forward here, because we should not be in order in doing so, since they would not be in the Vote before the Committee. We have never had an opportunity of discussing these matters, and this is our only chance of doing so.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman could easily have asked for the Vote if he had wanted it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It seems to me that the money we are now asked to vote consists, in the main, of two parts. First of all, there is a sum which puts
back part of the money that was deducted, and, secondly, there is new expenditure of the nature of maintenance and repairs. With regard to the first part, we are told that we have already voted in the House of Commons all the items seriatim, which cover several pages of the original Estimates; but we have not voted the full amount of £408,700. What was voted on the previous occasion was £408,700, less the £90,000. The Minister tells us that he cannot possibly say which items this new figure of £18,600 covers, and the position, therefore, is that this is a kind of glorified block vote. The House was first of all put in possession of the various items which might be incurred, and then it was told that to the extent of £90,000 they would not be incurred. Now the statement is made that £18,600 more is to be spent than was expected. I submit that we ought to have the particulars of the whole of these items, showing the additions, because otherwise we are unable to form any idea as to why this new amount of £18,600 is to be expended. With regard to the second part, namely, the sum of £43,700, I think the case is still stronger. It seems to me we were told that the maintenance and repairs were covered by the £300,450 passed in the original Estimate, and now there is to be added to that a sum of £43,700 for maintenance and repairs. I think we are entitled to know to what this additional £43,700 refers.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have explained that.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The explanation has not been satisfactory to us on this side. It was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett)—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that in my original introduction I explained the whole of that, and gave the exact reasons why we wanted the money?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Minister has had to confess that he does not know where this expenditure is going to be incurred. Could he tell us where he is going to save the £20,900?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought I had already explained that. There is a saving of £20,900, and of that we have
already saved about £18,000 by making contracts for fuel on more favourable terms, whereby we get our coal cheaper.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has referred to fuel, because that is a subject on which I desire to ask him a simple question. I understand that, acting upon the very highest advice, his Department has been making very successful experiments in the use of oil fuel in place of coal.

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the subject of oil fuel and coal on this Estimate?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Surely, we are entitled to discuss the anticipated savings on which the Estimate is based?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be in order to discuss the savings made, but it would be quite out of order to discuss the policy of substituting oil for coal.

Mr. BAKER: I understood the Under-Secretary to say that certain savings had been secured, and others were anticipated, as a result of obtaining coal at a cheaper rate. My information is that he has done a much more wonderful thing than that, and I desire to give him praise for having done it. That is that, acting on the best possible advice, he has substituted oil for coal as fuel, and thereby has effected great economy. I am asking him to confirm that.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have not substituted it.

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Gentleman said he had explained the extra amount that is asked for for maintenance and repairs, but, although I have been here all day, I must say that, although the hon. Gentleman answered my question as to Item N, I have no recollection of his giving any details as to how the £2,300 was spent.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I specially said, and I must apologise to the Committee for repeating it, that it was owing to the fact that many complaints had been made as to the condition of Post Offices all over the country, regarding which I have had to answer numerous questions in the House. A large part of
this expenditure is in order to meet the complaints that were made in the House. We are doing our best to make the accommodation better for the Post Office staff. A part of the expenditure is also due to the fact that at Christmas time the pressure necessitated adaptations of various premises. For instamce, pigeon holes have been provided in certain offices throughout the country, and the Committee, which reported since the main Estimate was passed, recommended certain sorting office fittings. We are carrying out that suggestion, and part of the expenditure is due to it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In the district in which I reside the Post Office premises are wretched compared with the amount of work that has to be transacted. I find that while the postmaster for the area is charged with the duty of providing suitable premises, there is little or no connection between the people who can provide the land at a reasonable price which would make the expenditure more economical and possibly secure a greater number of improvements in Post Office premises. That is what actually happens. The postmaster for a large area can only pay infrequent visits to a district. He goes there when he can and negotiates with those who are there for the purpose of making the maximum amount of profit out of this particular Government Department. Instead of doing that, they should negotiate with the local councils, who invariably have suitable land and property which could be used for these purposes. As it is, they secure land or premises which costs probably twice as much as it ought to do if the land were purchased in a proper sense by negotiations through the local council. I cannot help but think that not only do we not get suitable Post Office premises which would enable the postmasters to transact their business efficiently, but we double the price for some of the buildings in which the postal business is actually transacted. I should like to know that they are going to consider a different method of purchasing land.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this is not in the Vote at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Might I submit that obviously this money is spent for improvements in Post Office premises?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was clearly suggesting a matter of policy, which cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Many districts are suffering from faulty premises as the result of some of this expenditure, which ought to have been dealt with in an altogether different direction. While I am unable to make suggestions as to what ought to be done, I think the hon. Gentleman might very well look into the question and see that we are getting the best value for the money in all the districts where postal services are transacted.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in the same difficulty—and it is a very serious one—as every hon. Member who has addressed the Committee to-day. You, Sir, have ruled that it is in order to discuss the savings of £20,000 which are here shown, and the hon. Gentleman in charge is unable, except in the very toughest detail, to give us any indication as to what those savings are. He has told us that certain re-arrangements are being made in certain post offices, and that the savings are largely dependant upon the weather. He has told us certain committees are sitting to inquire into transport and other arrangements, but he cannot further specify the heads under which the savings are to be secured.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I said there are £20,900 of savings, and that was due, to the extent of £18,000, to more favourable coal contracts.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Then it is the increased expenditure that is due to the weather, because the hon. Gentleman certainly made some considerable point of the weather. I am not very clear as to the relation the weather bears to this Estimate, but the whole Estimate is surrounded in fog. I, like almost every one who has addressed the Committee, wish to ask the hon. Gentleman certain questions about the post offices in my constituency, but I realise that it is absolutely futile to put them. We have been discussing this question of post offices for two hours. One hon. Member is interested in Leicester and another in Wood Green, which the hon. Gentleman himself represents, but he is not in a
position to give any information whatever on this subject. There are only two persons who are in a, position to give this information. One is the Postmaster-General and the other is his assistant; and, seeing that those two Ministers are absent, and that without their presence the Committee cannot do its duty by the taxpayers or by its constituents, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion because most of the questions the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask would have been out of order.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Did you yourself, Sir, not rule that it would be in order to discuss these savings, and the expenditure mentioned in this Estimate? I want to know, for instance, about a particular sorting office that is mentioned in the main Estimate. I want to know how far the expenditure is covered by the Supplementary Estimate. I want to know why other post offices in my constituency are being closed, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants. I understand you have ruled that it would be in order if those post offices were in any way represented in this Estimate. You yourself ruled that it would have been in order to discuss the tube if the tube were covered in the main Estimate. We cannot get any information as to what exactly is covered in this Estimate, and, in the absence of the Postmaster-General or his assistant, we are put in a very considerable difficulty. For these reasons, I suggest that my Motion is in order.

Major CRAWFURD: I would support a Motion to report progress simply for this reason. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the £18,000 in the Supplementary Estimate is a figure made up of a number of losses here and, gains there, additions here and subtractions there, and that it has been found impossible to present that Estimate in such a form that you can see where the losses and where the gains have been.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have refused the Motion to Report Progress. Therefore, it is not in order to discuss it.

Mr. MAXTON: Since that Motion is out of order, I press on the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Vote and proceed with some of the others. When an
apology was made about the illness of the hon. Gentleman whose natural duty it was to put it through, I accepted the excuse as adequate, but, personally, I had a feeling in my mind that the hon. Gentleman had been put in charge of this Vote because of his well-known tact and his very great popularity. But on that Vote—the Vote affecting the Foreign Office—the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs did the Committee the service of sitting alongside the hon. Gentleman, and I think on one or two matters giving him the benefit of his advice. Now there is not a single representative of the Post Office here. The Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General are both Members of this House, and neither of them does the Committee the courtesy of even sitting on the Bench. One of them is engaged in very interesting activities outside, very remotely connected with the Post Office. On this matter, I think they ought to have been here. The hon. Gentleman's explanations are not satisfactory. He gave an explanation of the great increase of £43,700 under Heading O. That accounts for about half the total increase in the Estimate.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have explained that twice.

Mr. MAXTON: It is that twice-repeated explanation that I am now going to criticise. The hon. Gentleman has told us that part of that £43,700 was due to the fitting up of pigeon-holes in various Post Offices. I should have said, without any intimate knowledge of Post Office affairs but with the ordinary general intelligence of the man in the street, that the fitting up of pigeon-holes would more naturally have come under Heading P—Furniture—and not under Maintenance and Repairs. I certainly never yet heard of pigeon holes being regarded as part of the maintenance of a building or even the repair of a building. If it be true that this £43,700 increase is due to the provision of pigeon holes, what caused the increase of £17,000 in the item for Furniture? He told us this is scattered over a great number of Votes. Is it desks or chairs? [An HON. MEMBER: "Carrier pigeons!"] You cannot include carrier pigeons under the item of Furniture. I want to be told very definitely one thing about this
furniture, because I have had suggestions made to me to the contrary. In view of the statement of the Government that their great social programme is to get the people to buy British goods, I want to know if that furniture is British furniture.
7.0 P.M.
It is a point. We know quite well from past experience that it is quite possible for the Government to raise a slogan for the private citizen which it is not prepared to operate in its own governmental business. I have had it alleged that chairs are supplied to the Post Office which are known as Austrian Kentwood chairs, and are made by sweated labour in foreign countries. I want to know whether in this item Furniture, £17,000 extra spent, the most scrupulous care has been taken to get, first of all, a British article, and, secondly, a British article that has been made under decent labour conditions that decent people could defend and justify. That is a thing I think we are entitled to know when we are asked by the representative of the economy Government to vote a total additional expenditure of £66,500. That is a terrific big increase on the original Estimate; £43,000 and more on an original Vote of £300,000 is pretty big over-spending.
There is nobody here on these benches who grudges one single penny of additional expenditure that is real economy, spent on something that we are actually needing, or something that is improving the lot of some body of public servants, or rendering some better service to the community. We are going to have no grumble about any additional expenditure of that description, just as we are going to have no grumble at any economy which is a real economy and which is a withdrawal of some expenditure bringing no value at all. We passed the previous Vote, which involved £7,500, with very inadequate explanation, and to me the explanations given on this second Vote are just as inadequate. Before we know where we are we will have gone through several millions. We are always told that the Government are going to economise. But it is not on this particular Vote we are dealing with at the moment. It is on some other Vote at some other time. I want to know that these increases are legitimate and
genuine increases. Particularly, I want an answer to these questions on definite points that I have put to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think before proceeding to take the vote, if we are to have a vote, that it is only right and proper that we should express our dissatisfaction with the business methods of the Government. We are told that they are out here in their first attempt at economy, and the immediate results of their campaign for economy is an extravagant waste of time of this House. If the Government had framed its Estimates properly, then the general discussion to which we have had to devote a considerable time this afternoon would have taken place on the original Estimate. The hon. Member who is in charge of the Estimates told us that when they got out this sum of £90,000 they had already agreed to spend a sums of money for which they were not taking credit. Then the Financial Secretary comes along and tells us that this Government, having adopted this course, glories in going about without a penny in its pocket with which to pay its way. Then this impecunious Government comes forward to this House and, at a time when we should be discussing very important questions, takes up the time going over again the details of the administration that ought to have been discussed upon the original Estimate had it been properly prepared. I think we are entitled to protest against that. Economy should not begin with a waste of time, and a Government which confesses that it does not know how to frame its own Estimates but sends a Minister down here who does not even understand what is being done with the money, is not one in which we can repose much confidence in seeking proper economy in the affairs of the country.

Mr. HARDIE: Seeing that we are having requests for an additional £66,500, I wonder if the hon. Member in charge could give any information as to its application. For instance, when he mentions pigeon holes, could he tell me if any of them are going to the Springburn Post Office? When we are spending such a heap of money on pigeon holes, it would be interesting to know where they are being placed, because we in Springburn are not only
suffering from a lack of pigeon holes but a lack of an efficient post office, which I am not allowed to mention here. On this question of the money that is required under buildings and repairs, could the hon. Member in charge tell us what has happened to the work carried out last year and discussed in this House in relation to certain wood block floors? Can he tell us whether there is any of this new flooring included in the money now asked for? It is necessary, after all, to get down to business details. Laying some claim to know how business is conducted, I should like to know exactly how this money is going to be applied. It would save the time of this Committee if, when an Estimate like this is asked for, we had a specification of all that is included or forecast in the requirements which make up the sum. If we had that forecast, we could save the time of the Committee by not having to ask questions. Then we would only ask questions on the points we thought were not clear, and try to help the Government through on a business basis. You can be helped, you know, if you only take advice. The Home Secretary is the one man in the House who requires the help of all the other Members to get him through. [An HON. MEMBER "He is beyond it!"] No, he is not beyond it. There is always hope where there is life. He is good looking and living.
Are we to understand that, while we are not allowed to discuss certain local requirements, the hon. Member in charge is also prohibited from saying whether or not any of this money is to be spent in any particular locality and where? That really is a question for the Deputy-Chairman, who is ruling the Committee at the moment, rather than for the hon. Member in charge. When it comes to a question of Post Office local arrangements, and relating these to expenditure, you find, for instance, that in Glasgow we have a very fine General Post Office, but a penny train ride from there you come to what is called a branch post office, dilapidated, an awful looking wreck of a place, a place that you would think to look at it had been there since the Post Office began. That place is Springburn. I want to know if there is going to be a new post office out of this money for Springburn?

Mr. MAXTON: I really must press the hon. Gentleman who has charge of this
Vote—if he is persisting in putting it through to-day, although I think it would be much more courteous to the Committee if he withdrew it and arranged for the presence of a representative of the Post Office to be here—for an answer to the question I put about the furniture.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There cannot be any complaint that I have not been on my feet. Really, this has nothing to do with the Post Office. We had a certain programme which we have been asked to carry out, and our whole business is to carry out that programme as quickly, efficiently, and economically as possible. That is really the whole business of the Office of Works in this matter. It would be impossible on Supplementary Estimates to dive into every single item comprised in the whole programme. I have never seen it done. I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) who has taken a great part in this House, has never seen it done.

Mr. MAXTON: If the hon. Member will allow me, these remarks that- he is making may apply to other questions that were raised, but I did not raise any petty-fogging details.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was not referring to the hon. Member.

Mr. MAXTON: I thought you were answering me.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: You said there should be a representative of the Post Office here. In reply to one of the questions put by the hon. Member, I can assure him that only British furniture is bought.

Mr. MAXTON: Furniture manufactured in Britain? Not merely furniture bought from a British merchant or contractor—because, mark you, I have a very strong suggestion to the contrary put to me—but furniture that is actually manufactured inside Great Britain.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I can assure the hon. Member that the chairs were made in this country. It is so easy for hon. Members who take an interest in these particular cases. They have only to ask a question it write to the Office of Works, and they can find it out in a moment. It is impossible in
Estimates of this kind, especially when the hon. Gentleman asks for a withdrawal, to deal with all these small questions in the time. I have answered as many questions as I have ever heard answered before. I hope hon. Members will now allow us to have the Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman in getting the Vote, but his last speech has rather confused me. He tells us that the Post. Office Estimate has nothing to do with the Post Office. We want someone here to tell us why these things are needed. I can understand that the business of the Commissioner for Work is to carry out the work that the Post Office warts done and supply the goods that the Post Office wants. The Post Office might get a fit of extra vagance and ask for a whole lot of things it does not require.
I understood from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other experts on the Treasury Bench that this was a year when it was hoped the House of Commons would not only search pockets but search and examine every Estimate. The Minister who has charge of this Vote is the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and this evening, apparently, he is speaking for the Office of Works. He is one of those hon. Members on the other side whom we are always glad to find in any Department. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is sitting next to him and has listened to the hon. Member rebuking us for looking into these Estimates very minutely. I should have thought that we were doing exactly what is desired by a Government which wishes to effect economies, namely, sending time in trying to find out whether certain expenditure was necessary or unnecessary.
I should like to know a great deal more about this Estimate. On page 3 we are told that this sum of £18,600 is part of something which we were told last year would be saved. It was very bad estimating on the part of somebody, when the Department comes back a few months later and asks for a portion of the money again. We have not been told how this has happened. On the question of raising pettifogging, niggling points, I would
point out that hon. Members on the other side, at question time, have raised points about pens and lead pencils. We want to know whether all the furniture which is concerned in this Estimate is made in this country, and we are now told that that is the sort of thing we ought not to trouble about. I protest that the Postmaster-General or his Assistant is not here. When I came back to the House three Parliaments ago the Assistant Postmaster-General had beer improved out of existence; but this Government has restored him. I think it is an insult to the Committee that on of the representatives of the Post Office is not here to explain this Supplementary Estimate.
When hon. Members opposite were on this side, and my friends were on the other side, we were taken to task very severely in regard to Supplementary Estimates, even when those Supplementary Estimates had been forced upon the Labour Government by the bad estimating of those they had displaced. Now, apparently, we are not expected to criticise. When it is a question of giving some poor, unhappy person 6d. a week outdoor relief, the Minister of Health or his Parliamentary Secretary gets up and talks about extravagance. They search round to see how they can

save 3d. or 6d. out of the poor. We are entitled to search round to see that these Government Departments are not extravagant. I have not much faith in any of them when it comes to spending money, because I read the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which seem to show that they have made a pretty fine mess of things very often.

The Minister who is in charge of this Vote ought not to be put into the position of having to answer for the Post Office. The Committee ought not to go on without a representative of the Post Office being present. I think my hon. Friends have done right in asking whether these articles are home-made goods, especially when we are told in the newspapers and in the speeches of Ministers that we ought to buy Empire goods. It is expecting too much to ask the Minister to answer for the Office of Works and the Post Office at one and the same time. The people who are paid to do the job ought to be here to do it. If it be in order, I therefore move to report Progress in order that we may have the Postmaster-General here.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 263.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[7.22 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Ammon, Charles George
Gosling, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.


Baker, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James


Baker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Barr, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
Morris, R. H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Oliver, George Harold


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.


Clowes, S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Duncan, C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Varley, Frank B.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Throne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Windsor, Walter


Thurtle, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Looker, Herbert William


Ainsworth, Major Charles
England, Colonel A.
Lougher, L.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Atkinson, C.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacIntyre, I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Balniel Lord
Forrest, W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Berry, Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Margesson, Captain D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gee, Captain R.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
Moles, Thomas


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Bullock, Captain M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Harland, A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Owen, Major G.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Fercy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pitcher, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major John Walter
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Christie, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Radford, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Homan, C. W. J.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir F. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Huntingfield, Lord
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rye, F. G.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandon, Lord


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smithers, Waldron




Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Storry-Deans, R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wells, S. R.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Templeton, W. P.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Bowyer.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so as a protest against the absence of the Assistant Postmaster-General, who, I understand, is in the precincts of the House, and as a protest against the way in which the Votes have been presented.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I wish to support the reduction. Just now an hon. Member asked a specific question as to the origin of certain furniture covered by this Vote. I ask for specific information regarding the quantity of Post Office mail bags made in His Majesty's prisons. I understand that the proportion of mail bags so made is very large indeed. I happen to represent a Division which is vitally interested in the question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is anything about mail bags in this Vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand that under Item "P" there is a charge for a specific quantity of mail bags.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a Vote of the Office of Works, and I do not think that mail bags come under the Office of Works.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With great respect I submit that if mail bags are included in subhead "P," we are entitled to ask as to the labour conditions under which the bags are made.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could not allow discussion or a reply on that subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote, or someone, said that the item dealing with furnishings included a charge for mail bags.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I never heard the statement made, and I certainly did not make it myself.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a fact that the mail bags used by the Post Office are made in the prisons? That cannot be denied.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to know where the Home Secretary is. He could tell us.

Mr. KELLY: At any rate, we are able to discuss matters relating to new buildings that are being erected for the Post Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss new buildings in general, but only the amount of extra money necessary for their construction.

Mr. KELLY: The point I wish to raise is covered somewhere in this Vote. In view of the expenditure, I have wondered why we take so long to complete these buildings. Take the Rochdale Post Office as an example. At present the people of Rochdale have to suffer discomfort by reason of the inadequate accommodation of the existing post office building. Yet there is something quite leisurely about the way the Government erects the new building. I hope we shall have some indication as to the date when we may expect to have the use of the new office. We have not stinted the money to be expended, nor has there been any shortage of labour.

Mr. MARCH: I wish to know how it was that the Post Office took such a long time in tearing up the Commercial Road from Aldgate to the. Blackwall Tunnel?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is that covered by this Estimate?

Mr. MARCH: I see an item here "OO., Unemployment Relief Work, 1924–25." It
appears to me that that would cover the subject I am raising. The works committee of the borough council concerned, on many occasions asked the surveyor to get into communication with the General Post Office with a view of having the work hurried. Many times there were trenches opened—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Having had time to look into the matter, I find that the Vote has no relation to that particular work.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not a fact that they were doing that relief work for the unemployed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The whole of the unemployed relief work does not come under this Estimate

Mr. MARCH: I understand that the item under the heading "O.O." is unemployed relief work for which £5,300 is required. The item is on page 5.

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: Under various sub-heads of the different Votes of the Office of Works will be found certain sums allocated to unemployment relief work. This particular unemployment relief work relates merely to revenue buildings, which is the Vote we are discussing.

Mr. MARCH: If the Minister and the Department do not state the particulars in the Supplementary Estimates it is not surprising that Members get confused. The usual way is to be wrong and then to be put right. If this money is for buildings, what buildings are they and where are they being erected? I sometimes see buildings put up for the convenience of Government Departments, and within a few months they are pulled down. Is this one of those cases?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The work on the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers is expenditure that very likely comes under another Vote, which we shall reach shortly in connection with housing. I will find out definitely. It is quite clear that the matter does not come under this Vote.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is any of this work that has been undertaken since the hon. Gentleman left his late job and took the Under-Secretaryship for Foreign Affairs?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This expenditure on unemployed relief is the fag-end of the programme which was settled in 1924–25. We had a request from the Cabinet Committee to undertake a certain amount of absorption of the unemployed. That is spread over the whole of the work of the Office of Works. There might be six men employed here and six men there, or a hundred here and a hundred elsewhere. The Office of Works does its best to make out a general programme for the absorption of a certain number of unemployed.

Mr. MARCH: The work about which I was speaking is the work of laying new telephone wires for the Post Office from Aldgate to Blackwall Tunnel. If that work is included under this Vote I want to say that there was a disgraceful waste of time and energy on the part of everyone who had to use the Commercial Road.

Mr. BATEY: I submit to the Committee that this Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary if the General Post Office or the Office of Works, or the responsible Department, whatever it may be, had not wasted a sum of money in buying an old building in Durham for conversion into a new post office. This building occupies an unsuitable site, and by the side of the building there is a very narrow street along which the Post Office vans will have to pass. This street is only wide enough to allow one vehicle to pass at a time, and no arrangement has been made to set the building back. That narrow street leads to a place where the county council have built, and where there are a good many dwelling houses, and in addition the county council have built a large secondary school in the neighbourhood, and this arrangement will interfere with the children going to that school.

Sir G. HOHLER: The hon. Member seems to be dealing with the case of a secondary school under the Durham County Council, and the approach to it. What that has to do with the present Vote, I cannot understand.

Mr. LANSBURY: If we are able to show that the Department have wasted money, that is a reason for voting against a proposal to entrust them with more money. The hon. Member for Spenny—moor (Mr. Batey) is only showing the gross incompetency of the Department.

Sir G. HOHLER: I submit that is not an answer to my point. I have no doubt they have wasted money, but that is not the question. I cannot find any reference to this matter in the present Estimate, and the original Estimate has already been authorised by Parliament. I cannot understand how this particular matter arises here; and I suggest that the Opposition, if they are endeavouring to obstruct, must at least confine themselves within the Rules of the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that a discussion is not necessarily out of order because the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) does not understand it.

Mr. BATEY: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member rises to the point of Order or whether he wishes to continue his speech.

Mr. BATEY: I rise to the point of Order first. I was endeavouring to show that the Supplementary Estimate was larger than it need have been, because the Post Office have bought this old building which no sensible man would purchase for this purpose. I submit I am entitled to show that they were wrong.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The whole question which arises is whether the original Estimate passed by the House included the purchase of these premises, and whether the additional sum asked for in the present Estimate is in any way due to that purchase.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This increase is due to the speeding up of the programme previously agreed upon by the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: We want to know if it includes the cost of this old building at Durham, and apparently nobody can tell us.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that item was in the main Estimate.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: On a point of order. On page 52 of the main Estimate there is an item, "Durham new Post Office and Telephone Exchange."

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having overlooked the item. It does not, however,
alter my original statement that the whole of this increase is due to the speeding up of a programme agreed upon by Parliament.

Mr. BATEY: Am I not entitled to show by this means that the Estimate is unnecessarily large?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to raise the point which he has mentioned, if he can chow that some of the additional money for which the Estimate is presented is needed for the purchase of this building. The original sum required for the purchase was voted on the original Estimate which has been passed by the House already. If there is an additional sum which necessitates this Supplementary Estimate then the hon. Member will be in order.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I see that in the main Estimate the amount required for this particular purpose for 1925–26 was £1,000 [HON. MEMBERS £14,000."] I do not know whether this particular work has anything to do with the general increase, because that increase has been spread over the whole area. If it has anything to do with the increase, that merely means that this work has gone on rather more quickly than was anticipated.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Before passing the Estimate, the Committee is entitled to know whether any of the money is to be spent on this building.

Mr. BATEY: If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is not able to give us the information we require, I ask leave to move to report Progress in order that we may obtain the information.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I protest against the way in which this Estimate has been prepared. Hon. Members on the Government side seem to be impatient of the care with which these matters are being studied—

Mr. BATEY: Where am I? I was asking for leave to move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In the main Estimate last year a certain programme was agreed upon, and it was
the command of the House to the Office of Works that the programme should be carried out. We are doing so, and the increase for which we ask is caused by the fact that we are carrying out the wishes of the House more quickly than was anticipated.

Mr. FENBY: The Committee is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the many and courteous answers he has made on these points. Over and over again he has assured us that speeding-up is responsible for the increase, and that the increase covers the whole area. I observed in the Estimates the words "Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain and certain poet offices abroad," which indicate that it is a very wide area, and apparently includes work done abroad. I recognise the difficulty under which the hon. Member is working, because he has no one beside him who is directly concerned with these matters, and whose duty it would be to inform the Committee upon them. In the town where I live there is a population of over 20,000, and a wooden structure, which has been in existence for about 20 years on railway property, is now being used by the Post Office for a purpose different to that for which it was intended, with the result that the delivery of letters is about an hour later than it should be.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question of policy concerning the Post Office, and does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate, which deals with the Office of Works.

Mr. FENBY: With all respect, Sir, I submit that it can be raised under the item "Maintenance and repairs." I want to know why the Office of Works is accepting a responsibility for retaining this building—originally erected for the sorting and distribution of letters—for another purpose, when the result is that the people are handicapped by the late delivery of letters. Only the Postmaster-General or his assistant could tell us why that building is being maintained at the expense of the country through the Office of Works, while the population are being penalised in the way I describe. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do his best to secure the attendance here of those who can give the Committee the information
required. I am a comparatively new Member of the House, but I am accustomed to administrative work on public bodies, and if I may say so with all respect, I do not think a parish council would allow an exhibition of the kind we have seen to-day, in connection with the discussion of public expenditure. The persons who are really responsible deliberately stay away, and to say the least of it, that is not courteous to hon. Members, let alone to the people whom they represent.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was pointing out that hon. Members opposite are impatient at the questions which are being directed to the Government on this matter. Like the last speaker, I am a comparatively new Member of this House, but I have learned something of the care that should be taken to elicit information. When I was sitting on the benches opposite behind the Labour Government I learned that hon. Members who support the present Government were wonderfully curious. I remember on one occasion a Member of the Conservative party holding up the House because he wanted to know how many buttons there were to be on a soldier's tunic. I think some further information is required about this Vote. We are told that the increases are due to speeding up, but I cannot see how that is possible. The original Estimate provided for the spending of a certain amount of money, and I cannot see why the speeding up of the work has therefore increased the cost.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is no increase at all in the actual work done.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What are we voting the money for in that case?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Merely to carry out the programme.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I find that in the estimate for office furniture there is an increase of about £17,000, or 33 per cent. increase on the original estimate. It is very, bad estimating, and it shows that something is radically wrong. I think we should have been told something about this furniture; the size and the nature of it. Is it to be chairs, beds or sofas. We ought to know something about all these points, and we are well justified in asking that someone should be here who is able to give us the information.
The Under-Secretary has been exceedingly courteous during a rather trying half-hour, and everybody recognises that he has done his best, but where is the Minister who is in charge of this particular Department? I agree with hon. Members that it is treating the House with great disrespect for none of the representatives of the Post Office to be in the House at the moment. It is not fair to the Under-Secretary, who does not now occupy the position he did some time ago. There is great room for inquiry; and we should be given the details of all these increases which, after all, amount to a large sum. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of proclaiming their desire for meticulous economy, but at the same time they vote away large sums of money; in fact, they vote an increase of 33 per cent. on one item, a small item, alone.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise to the Under-Secretary because I was unable to hear the whole of his reply to the discussion. I only want to ask him one or two questions about the new works alterations and additions "contained in this Vote. Is any part of this for automatic telephones, which I understand have been installed in some places? Is any part of it for unemployment relief work, or certain portions of the underground telephone lines. This its an important matter. Every time we have a heavy gale or snow in the North of England our telephone communications with London and other large centres are always interfered with, to the great inconvenience of business people. Very slowly the excellent work of increasing the efficiency of the telephone service goes on, and I think the work to obviate these disastrous breakdowns may be done largely by unskilled labour. It would benefit those men who are at present unemployed. I hope some of this expenditure is to be used for this purpose. I wish more details were given, and there has been plenty of time to print more additional details of "New works, alterations and additions."
I am sorry the Committee has to do without the presence of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. I have always thought it somewhat of an anomaly that two Ministers should represent the Post
Office in this House, but, as that is the case, I should have thought one of them at least would have been present this evening. It is not fair to expect the Under-Secretary, who has bravely held the bridge for the Post Office this afternoon, to undertake to reply to all the points raised. He has done it very well, but it is not fair to him. Is any of this very considerable additional sum—it an increase of £65,500; a very grave error in estimating in what is supposed to be a businesslike department—due to the provision of land lines for broadcasting purposes? There are two sides to this question. The Post Office side is that the present telephone lines are good enough for relaying broadcast concerts and programmes. On the other hand the listeners and the Broadcasting Company demand very much finer telephone lines for relaying music. I do not want to go into the details of this subject, but telephone lines that are good enough for long distance telephoning have not the vibrations necessary—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter for the Office of Works, and it is not in Order.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I will in that case content myself in asking whether any part of the "new works, alterations and additions" are for better land lines for this particular purpose. If so, I think it should be stated in the Estimate. Why I refer to this matter is because there have been demands for this expenditure from people who are interested in wireless, and that may be another good reason why we should be told. The three points I have raised might be answered very briefly. They are: the question as to automatic exchanges, the question of preventing those ridiculous breakdowns whenever we have a heavy gale or fall of snow, and the provision of better land lines for carrying broadcast programmes to the millions of listeners we have in this country.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope the Committee will now be able to let us have the Vote.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I put one question to the Under-Secretary? The more one examines this Vote the more the discussion is justified. I have just discovered that this sum of money is to
be spent on certain Post Offices abroad. I want to know what jurisdiction the Department have over Post Offices abroad, and how he justifies the expenditure of public money in other countries at a time when that money is very urgently required at home?

Mr. McNEILL: On that point of Order, surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be in Order in raising a question of policy, whatever the policy may be, with regard to these Post Offices abroad. That is covered by the Vote already passed by the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that if we are voting British money for foreign services—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is nothing in this Estimate that covers them at all. They are not included in this Estimate.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit in that case that this Estimate should be withdrawn on the ground that it is misleading.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is merely the title, and it has always come to the House in that form.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I say that the furniture is office furniture, chairs and tables. The question of automatic telephones does not come under this Vote at all. I hope the Committee will now be able to give us the Vote.

Mr. SCURR: I should be only too pleased to agree to the desire of the Under-Secretary if it had not been for the fact that we have been treated throughout the whole of the afternoon with the greatest discourtesy by the Department concerned. We have not had the presence of the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General. We have been confronted by many members of the Government. It has been a pleasure to notice the great interest taken in Post Office matters by the Minister of Education, by the Secretary of State for War, and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have also seen the Minister for Pensions on the Front Bench also interested in Post Office work.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 116.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
England, Colonel A.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Atkinson, C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Finburgh, S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarry, Reginald George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clayton, G. C.
Forrest, W.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Berry, Sir George
Cooper, A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cope, Major William
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gee, Captain R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, I. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Robert


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gretton, Colonel John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Grotrian, H. Brent


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hammersley, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harland, A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Cassels, J. D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Merriman, F. B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smithers, Waldron


Hoare, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moles, Thomas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Homan, C. W. J.
Murchison, C. K.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, R. J.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Templeton, W. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Col. R. J. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Oakley, T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Huntingfield, Lord
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Pilcher, G.
Waddington, R.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jephcott, A. R.
Preston, William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Raine, W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
While Lieut.-Colonel G. Calrymple


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Lougher, L.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Wise, Sir Fredric


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rye, F. G.
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Major Sir H. Barnston and Major


Margesson, Captain D.
Skelton, A. N.
Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Baker, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Broad, F. A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Montague, Frederick


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Charleton, H. C.
Heyday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clowes, S.
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Connolly, M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Crawford, H. E.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sexton, James


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Fenby, T. D.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, R. A.
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Windsor, Walter


Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.
Wright, W.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Varley, Frank B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £66,400, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 248.

Division No.7.]
AYES.
[8.24 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shilels, Dr. Dummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Collins, Sir. Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glsagow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.- Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wheatly, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A.




Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brass, Captain W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Briggs, J. Harold
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Apsley, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burman, J. B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cope, Major William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cowan, Sir Wm, Henry (Islingtn. N.)


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Campbell, E. T.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cassels, J. D.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, S. S.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


England, Colonel A.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lougher, L.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smithers, Waldron


Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forrest, W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacIntyre, Ian
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gee, Captain R.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Templeton, W. P.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Goff, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, F. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gretton, Colonel John
Moles, Thomas
Waddington, R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hammersley, S. S.
Murchison, C. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watts, Dr. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilcher, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Preston, William
Wolmer, Viscount


Holland, Sir Arthur
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Homan, C. W. J.
Raine, W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.



Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Remnant, Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Hennessy and Captain


Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Bowyer.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: rose in his place and claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee proceeded to a Divition—

Mr. LANSBURY (seated and covered): ; I wish to raise a point of Order. I was on my feet at least three times, and
addressed you in order to ask you a question. In the noise and confusion, no one knows what Question has been put.

The CHAIRMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to Standing Order No. 26, where the procedure is set forth.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 114.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Neville, R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Apsley, Lord
Gee, Captain R.
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkinson, C.
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gratan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel John
Preston, William


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Gortrian, H. Brent
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.


Berry, Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton)
Harland, A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth Kennington)
Remer, J. R.


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remnant, Sir James


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar.& Wh'by)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rye, F. G.


Burman, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hohler, Sir General Fitzroy
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Homan, C. W. J.
Savery, S. S.


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackeny, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chapman, Sir S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Simith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchamn, Sir Arthur C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Regianld George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commamder Hon. A. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, W. P.


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tinne, J. A.


Croft, Brigadier-Genaral Sir H.
Loder, J. de. V.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de. W. (Berwick)
Lougher, L.
Waddington, R.


Cunliffe, Sir Joseph Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waston, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


England, Colonel A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marrlott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Moles, Thomas
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Finburgh, S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forrest, W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Foster, Sir Harry S.
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

It being after a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): resumed the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I wish to ask you whether an hon. Member of this House is not entitled to be treated with courtesy by the Chairman of Committees. I am a Member of this House, and I am entitled to ask you that question. I am entitled to be treated with courtesy by the Chairman or the Speaker. I rise now to ask you what it was that the hon. Member in charge of the Vote moved. In the most discourteous manner you treated me with perfect contempt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not intend to submit to it from you or anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Every Member of this House has a right to be treated with courtesy and decency both by you or by anybody else in the Chair. I protest against your contemptuous treatment of Members.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a further point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to ask you under what Standing Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"]—you accepted the Motion to put the Resolution to the House while at the same time ignoring the hon. Member who rose? I rose and wished to carry on the discussion and to suggest carrying over the Debate. What Standing Order was it under which you acted?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has now resumed, and any exception taken to the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or any other occupant of the Chair for the time being, may be raised at the proper place and time.

Mr. WALLHEAD: When is that?

Mr. MACLEAN: On a further point of Order. While this House has again resumed as a House, out of Committee of Ways and Means, it still remains that it is the same personality who is occupying the Speaker's Chair who acted as Chairman during the previous discussion. You gave the ruling that was given. I
am surely in order in asking you to inform the House under what Standing Order you gave, your ruling?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, the hon. Member is not so in Order. He can raise the point by formal Motion, but it is not in order, now that the House has resumed, to raise the question of the validity of the ruling of the Chairman of Committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What we want to know is whether the Deputy-Chairman is going to offer courtesy to Members of this House.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point Order. I want to know under what Standing Order you give the ruling that you now give. I am asking for that Standing Order to be quoted to the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The practice of the House is, and Mr. Speaker's ruling is that it is not his duty to give any ruling as to what has passed in Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to know under what Standing Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is now long past the time at which the Motion, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of London (Dr. Little), should have been taken—

Mr. LANSBURY: That is your fault. There would have been no Division but for you.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will be perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to put down a Motion on the subject, but it is not in order for him to resume the subject now—

Mr. MACLEAN: I am resuming it now, as soon as you sit down.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: —and the matter can then be argued on its merits. But he is not now in order in raising any point of Order on what happened in Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking you to quote the Standing Order. [HON. MEM-
BERS "Order!"] I am asking you to quote the Standing Order under which you gave that ruling.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in Order for the hon. Member to do so now.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am resuming again when you resume your seat.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Dr. Little.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am arguing on a point of Order.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must resume his scat. Dr. Little.

Orders of the Day — UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTICE.

Dr. LITTLE: I beg to move:
That, in the opinion of this House, an authoritative inquiry, with the object of making recommendations to Parliament for dealing with the whole position of irregular practice in medicine and surgery, is urgently necessary.
Before coming to the terms of this Motion, I wish to give a short explanation in order to make my own position quite clear. I speak not with the Olympian detachnient of the retired practitioner, because I am myself now in practice; but if the fact that I am now practising as a physician has some drawbacks, it has some more than corresponding advantages. I am in close touch with the medical opinion of the day, and I represent the views of medical practitioners. The spreaid of unqualified practice is a fact which has been admitted. The reasons given for its spread are many, and perhaps the most important of them is the swollen length of the medical curriculum. The medical curriculum of the day occupies at least six years, and if there were a short cut to the same status and emoluments without the necessity of working through this curriculum, it is obvious that such a method of approach would be very popular. It is not easy, perhaps, for the general public to understand the position of quaified and unqualified practitioners. It is represented sometimes that British medicine is a system
of knowledge confined to the British Isles or the British Empire. That is manifestly untrue. British medicine is part of international medicine. But British medicine has had its special chemical bent, and in training students they are taught that they must always have the interests of the patient in view. The instruction, too, is practical instruction.
Let me tell the House of the impression which our British system of teaching has made upon a foreign observer. He was the envoy of the Rockefeller Institute of New York, and he came to this country to study our system of teaching. I had an opportunity of conferring with him on the subject, and he gave it as his considered opinion that in the Great War British medical men were of more practical usefulness than any other body of medical men concerned in that war. The British school pays special attention to clinical treatment; the curriculum of the General Medical Council requires tuition in 30 subjects of scientific value before the student can sit for his first qualifying examination. I make that comparison to show what is the difference, or what is an important difference, between qualified and unqualified practice. Another very important quality of international medicine is that any discovery which is made by one individual is immediately made known to the rest of the world, and in that manner all discoveries become public property, instead of remaining the secret of the discoverer. The note of unqualified practice is secrecy as to the methods employed—

Mr. ERSKINE: Not at all.

Dr. LITTLE: —and absence of opportunities of clinical study. I propose to speak more especially about one group of unqualified practitioners, the osteopaths, because they are most in the public eye at the present time. They are very different in many respects from other groups of unqualified practitioners. In the first place, they claim to be as fully trained in medicine and surgery as are our own students in our medical schools. A third claim on which is a, very important differentiation is that they have invented a new system of medicine and surgery, and that system consists of the application of a formula and a theory which was propounded fifty years ago by a medical practitioner in one of
the small towns in the Western States of America. This theory has been examined and rejected by international medicine, and nowhere more thoroughly than in the home of its discovery—the United States. In the census of 1920 the number of osteopaths in the United States was stated to be 5,000 and the number of qualified physicians and surgeons in the same year was stated to be 145,000. Status claimed for these practitioners is that they are all as fully qualified to practise surgery in this country and the British Empire as our own men.
As the claim is made for teaching which is given abroad, it becomes necessary to examine that claim; and I would like to explain that there are at the present time serious complaints in regard to the medical colleges and medical boards which regulate these things. That condition of things has come about because of what we call in this country and in Europe bogus qualifications, which have been largely distributed. Any college can give a certificate of any kind it likes. The result of that excessive amiability is that very considerable confusion has arisen in regard to the quality of American qualifications, because there are colleges which are highly qualified and some which are not.
9.0 P.M.
There are three grades, A, B and C. The students from grade A are allowed to sit for examination in their county without having qualified in any of the preliminary subjects necessary for practising medicine, they can present themselves for the final examination which qualifies them for practice in this country. I think that fact disposes of the allegation that the medical profession is a very close trade union which refuses to admit outsiders. Already 45 such candidates have been admitted to examination by our examining bodies.
Let us examine the position of this development. I want to say that what is being sought now is to make that a qualified diploma of the British Empire. Now that status is nowhere given in the United States. All that the diploma does is that the holder may present himself for examination by the State Boards of Medicine and Surgery, and if his credentials are sufficiently good, only then is he allowed to practice in that state. Another re-
striction is that the osteopaths are not allowed to obtain positions in the military and naval service of the United States. I know that the House of Commons is not the proper place to discuss the theory upon which osteopathy is based, but one can say something of its character even to a lay audience. The theory of osteopathy was founded in 1874 by Andrew Still, and it is to the effect that the primary cause of every disease is some interference with the blood supply caused by some derangement of the bones or the nerves of the spinal column. The treatment is a manipulation of the spine.
Let us consider that theory as it is confronted with actual disease, and I will just illustrate what I want to explain by mentioning what are considered to be five great scourges, tubercle, syphilis, malaria, cancer and insanity. Three of these are regarded by people other than osteopaths as being due to bacterial infection, and the bacteria which cause them can be seen under the microscope. In the case of cancer, all the modern work points to a bacterial cause, direct or indirect, and a very large body of the cases of insanity are unquestionably due to bacterial infection. Consider the disease of tuberculosis, and the harm that the manipulation of tuberculous structures, such as joints, may do. Again, with regard to the question of malaria, it is well known that Surgeon-General Gorgas, of the United States Army Medical Corps, and his devoted assistants, made possible by their work the completion of the Panama Canal. That was because they had studied the habits of the malarial parasite, and applied drugs which were known to cure or alleviate malaria. Surgeon-General Gorgas and his assistants might have gone on till the crack of doom manipulating the spines of the workmen engaged on the Panama Canal without achieving any such result. Let me here quote an admission from an osteopath, of which I have obtained a copy. It has reference to the death of his own son, and he mentions it in this way:
Billy had diphtheria four days before we knew what he had. I had never seen a case of diphtheria before, and never even thought to look at his throat. Dr. X was called on the fourth day, and diagnosed the trouble at once. He is an M.D., and has had wide experience. He has had a
training which many of us have not had. Is not it best to be a physician first and an osteopath afterwards?
I now want to say a word about the position of the medical profession with regard to osteopathy and the public. I would liken the medical profession to a generous and wise wife in a happy marriage. I picture the husband as an amorous fellow, but good-hearted, and the osteopath I picture as a flighty young flapper of superficial attractions. I understand that the expression "giving the glad eye" has been raised to the status of a Parliamentary expression by its use by a front bencher—one of the frontest of front benchers. Glad eyes have been exchanged between the husband and the younger lady. The wife at home has not been entirely oblivious of that flirtation, but she has been prudent enought not to impede it in any way. The "Twelve Pound Look" has not yet come into her eyes, the good lady is calmly confident that the usual disillusionment will follow upon this amorous adventure, as it has followed on so many others in the past, and the medical profession is not, I think, unduly disturbed.
It is not, however, from the point of view of the medical profession that I think we should approach this subject at all. It is not the rich who suffer most from unqualified practice, but the poor, and no one can have served, as I have served, as a hospital physician, for 30 years, without being really saddened at the instances one has seen of the dreadful state of the poor from the point of view of the unqualified medical treatment which they get. I refer to the dispensing chemist, to the optician who pretends to be an oculist, to the dentist who is a quack, and who fits new plates upon horribly septic stumps which are poisoning the whole system. It is that kind of unqualified practice the evil of which I think people do not sufficiently realise.
I wish to return to the question of unqualified practice in other countries. I think it is very remarkable that, although we have had so much legislation to improve the condition of the necessitous poor in this country; we have never considered this very important question. There is no robbery so dreadful as the robbery of unqualified medical practice; there is no spoliation of the poor more horrible than that. Let us see what the rest of the world does in the matter of
unqualified practice. I think it will really astonish the House to know that England and Germany are the only two countries in the world, apart from uncivilised countries, which do not penalise unqualified practice. We have countries which make no provision for it at all in their legislation. Those countries are India, China, Persia, Morocco, Abyssinia, Zanzibar, and other places of that type. But, with the exception of England, Germany, and five of the Australian States, practically all the rest of the world penalises unqualified practice. On the Continent of America, Brazil sets an excellent example Brazil awards a punishment of one month's solitary confinement. Argentina has a system of direct fines ranging from £435 to £1,740.
In the United States the penalties are different in the different States. The 49 States have different laws, but the average fine is from five to five hundred dollars. In Canada there is no legislation by the Dominion Parliament, and each of the individual provinces has its own rules, but it may be said as a general statement that of recent years Canada has insisted upon a minimum medical education as a qualification, and in Canada, as in other countries, the unqualified practitioner can be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. The principle which underlies the legislation I have mentioned all over the world, except in our own country and in Germany, is that it is a fallacy to suppose that any individual may be safely permitted to practice any single branch of medicine, however simple it may appear, without first undergoing adequate instruction in the sciences fundamental to the understanding of medicine. There is a minimum of education and training below which it is obviously unsafe to go, and again I would say it is obvious that every country must keep in its own hands the control of that irreducible minimum. It is for these reasons that I have asked for an inquiry which would allow of the examination of these unqualified diplomas coming to us, and for these reasons that I have moved this Motion.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I beg to second the Motion.
The best of all proverbs is, that the shoemaker should stick to his last. I greatly fear that the intervention of a
mere layman on a subject so technical as this may be looked upon as an instance of that unqualified practice which we deplore. Nevertheless, I am encouraged to claim the privilege of seconding this Motion by a strong sense of the deep public interest involved. We cannot but feel the great debt of gratitude that we owe to the practice of medicine and surgery by qualified practitioners—some more, some less. As a matter of public interest, we cannot but feel, as representatives of the public, that the medical and the surgical professions are the front line in the trenches in the great warfare against disease, and that no effort on our part can be wasted which is devoted towards the maintenance of the discipline and the efficiency of that distinguished art. Let me most seriously recommend this question, then, to the consideration of the Minister of Health, the advantage of whose presence we have upon the Bench to-night. He is the general of the army that is fighting disease, and it is his care to see that the discipline and the efficiency of his troops are well maintained.
But I am further encouraged to-night to take some small part in the support of this Motion by the personality of the Mover. He is not only a distinguished ornament of that profession which has lent so many of its ornaments to this House, with an eminently practical knowledge of the high work of that profession, which he has so amply illustrated in his speech, but he is also the representative of the University of London. The University of London, with its vast, prosperous, highly developed medical schools, is the recruiting ground for those who are to fight in this army of medicine against disease, and any representation made by the elected representative of that body to this House is one that is indeed deserving of attention.
I do not think there ought to be much difficulty in commending this Motion, with its temperate phraseology, to the favourable attention of the House. I would commend it to hon. Members on the benches opposite as a measure of protection of one of the most ancient institutions in the country, an institution which has been the glory of the civilisation and the culture of the country ever since the days when the tribal medical man, in the days of the Heptarchy, trepanned our
wounded ancestor and dealt, I have no doubt, with the unqualified practitioner by the simple method of the club.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: The original chub doctor.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and learned Member appreciates the point. I would commend the Motion to hon. Members above the Gangway. Here is an opportunity for striking a blow on behalf of the sacred principles of the trade union. It needs more words but I am encountered with no more difficulty in commending the Motion to hon. Members who sit upon the same benches as myself. The cause we have nearest at heart is that of individual liberty. I refer to the greatest of all champions of that cause, the greatest of all Radicals, John Stuart Mill. In his works we learn that the liberty of some individuals can only be secured by confining the licence of others. The liberty of a law-abiding citizen can only be obtained by confining the liberty of the criminal. The liberty of the honest man can only be obtained by confining the liberty of the fraud. I have not the least intention of suggesting for a moment that the practitioners of osteopathy and cheiro-practice are either criminals or frauds, Of course not. There are many honest, many able men. But I share the view that they are guilty of inflicting something in the nature of an imposition upon the public, and to my colleagues on these benches I would say that the liberty which it is most necessary to secure is liberty from being imposed upon. I am sure we cannot but think there is a good deal of imposition in this practice of osteopathy. When I learned what my privilege was to be to-night, I concerned myself to make some inquiries as to the nature of this practice. I pursued my acquaintances in the Lobby until I came across an instance of it. It was not long to seek. I found a fellow member who had consulted an osteopathist. He was suffering from acute neuralgia. I asked him how the osteopathist had dealt with him. He said, "He asked me to lie down upon my back, and then he pulled my leg." I said, "I think he did." I submit that there is an element of that practice in all the proceedings of the osteopathist and the cheiro-practors.
Let me revert to a homely illustration. I desire to call attention to the word "qualified" in this Motion, and to dwell upon this illustration. We are dealing here with the question of State regulation. Is not the principle as regards that this? There are appropriate regions for efficient State regulation. There are appropriate regions for no State regulation at all. But the thing for which nothing can be said is half-and-half an inefficient State regulation—State regulation which does not serve its purpose—and it is on that point that I desire to produce my homely illustration. It is to compare osteopaths and the sale of his services to the sale of milk. Under the Food and Drugs Act it is a penal offence to sell milk which is not pure. Now let us suppose that those penalties were to be abolished and the only penalty which attached to the sale of impure or diluted milk was that The vendor could not recover the price of the milk, while at the same time the advertised provisions dealing with the guarantee of the sale of pure milk stood upon the Statute Book, but unsupported by any sufficient penalty. We know what would happen. The fraudulent milk vendors—and even in that innocent profession there are people with fraudulent inclinations—those who are inclined to fraudulent profits on diluted milk, would flood the markets with diluted milk because there was no penalty. The public would be entrapped. There would be an apparent provision in the Statute Book to ensure that the milk sold was pure and undiluted, but as a matter of fact there would be nothing to enable the public to know that the milk it was getting was not half water because the penalties were not adequate.
Precisely analogous is the present position with regard to medical services. The State professes to guarantee that the medical practitioner shall be properly qualified, but does not support that with adequate penalty. The only penalty applied is that the unqualified practitioner cannot recover his fees. If the State professes to go into business to guarantee the qualified medical service by State enactments, it should support it by adequate penalties; if it does not, it is simply entrapping an innocent public. Let me illustrate it by another case. Why should the practice as regards doctors be
different from that as regards solicitors? Is the practice of medicine any less important than the practice of solicitors? Which is the more vital interest for the individual welfare and the future of the race—that our health should be good, or that our income shall be properly protected by the legal services of a solicitor? It is a mere accident of the history of our country that that is so as regards a solicitor, because by a sort of legal anachronism the solicitor is an officer of the Court, and therefore subject to the penalty of the Court. What would happen to a costermonger if he advertised himself as a solicitor and were to advertise that he could win lawsuits for his clients by tying a knot in the judge's wig? It is not different really from the sort of advertisement of the irregular and unqualified practitioner. Is it more important to protect the welfare of the general public from fraud in the case of his property, or from imposition in the case of his health?
There is another most important consideration in this matter of the protection of the health of the public against unqualified practitioners. This is really what drives this point home to me. In this matter of professional services it appears to me that there is a law in operation which is very similar to a law, not unfamiliar to students of economy, and which in the region of currency is known as Gresham's Law. That law is that, if you put a bad coin into circulation, it drives a good coin out of circulation. If you have people carrying on medical practice with the easy qualifications, or utter absence of qualification of the unqualified practitioner, going straight on to the market and able to earn his living in no very reputable way without the long years spent in study and qualification for his job, he makes competition himself with the properly qualified man who has to spend six or seven years qualifying himself. In order to protect the good coin of properly qualified men in the circulation of the practice, you have to prevent competition with the bad coin of the man not properly qualified.
This Resolution is not aimed at any particular theory of the practice of medicine. I dwell again on the presence in the Resolution of that word "unquali-
fied." That is the point. I venture to say that even this House, with its great number of Members of highly technical experience, is not qualified to pronounce as to whether this or that theory of the practice of medicine is a sound or true one. What we are qualified to say is this: that whatever be the true theory of the practice of medicine, whether it is the theory of the osteopath or the homepathist or any other pathist, we are entitled to say that that man shall not be entitled to sell his advice to the public under something in the nature of a Government guarantee, unless he has taken the trouble and pains properly to qualify himself to give the advice. The osteopathist may be right; the orthodox school may be right; but no man is entitled to pronounce judgment as to which is right unless he has worked five or six years at the study of medicine. That is the proposal of the hon. Member for the University of London (Dr. Little)—that a man shall not be allowed to practise medicine under something in the nature of a Government guarantee unless he has taken pains to qualify himself to pronounce judgment is to which is the right theory. This is surely a most reasonable Motion, it asks only for an inquiry. The request for such an inquiry based on such grounds is one which the House cannot afford to neglect.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "is" in line 3, and to insert instead thereof the words
securing the recognition and registration of manipulative practitioners having approved qualifications.
One is not surprised that the attitude of the hon. Member for the University of London (Dr. Little) should be one of definite hostility against these practitioners. It is necessary that he should be loyal to the view of his association. I am unable to accept a Resolution which, although merely calling for an inquiry, is framed in such language and contains so obvious a desire to condemn a body of men whom we believe to be doing work of great value. I, therefore, beg to move my Amendment, which, if carried, would make the Motion read:
That in the opinion of this House an authoritative inquiry with the object of securing the recognition and registration of
manipulative practitioners having approved qualifications is urgently necessary.
I am asking the House definitely to accept, a policy of recognition by registration of persons of approved skill. The inquiry could settle what the necessary qualifica tions shall be. It ought not to be a matter of very great difficulty. In America, for example, there are seven colleges working under the supervision of the American Osteopathic Association. The standard they set is high. That standard could be accepted. There are hospitals and sanatoria in America, working under the same supervision, where it is notorious that the work done is excellent and most efficient. One cannot discuss qualifications on an occasion of this sort. I am asking for an inquiry on the basis of recognition by registration. That inquiry can draw the line where it likes, so long as it gives the people of this country the benefit of that branch of the healing art.
We have been reminded of Dr. Still In 1892 there was one osteopath in the world, and that was Dr. Still. In America to-day there are upwards of 8,000 fully qualified osteopaths, and hundreds more are scattered about the) world. The progress in America has been enormous. Why has it not been so here? Simply and solely because of the opposition of the medical profession. We are all familiar with the notorious case of Dr. Axam, who was struck off the medical register because he administered chloroform for a most able manipulator.
I speak feelingly on this point. I am going to mention one or two personal instances which I had not intended to mention, but so much has been said against these people. Twenty-five years ago, my father had an injury to the knee, and for months he was crippled. I forget how many doctors he consulted; but not one of them was able to do him any good. He was faced with the prospect of being a cripple for life, until he went to Mr. Barker, as he was then. My father was absolutely cured in a short time, and was never troubled again. The work of curing involved the infliction of most excruciating pain, again and again. I submit that in a civilised country suffering of that kind ought not to be necessary when there are such obvious means of preventing it.
Is this branch of the healing art of no value? Is the country to be denied the benefit of service of that kind? Here is a branch of service and knowledge which does not happen to form part of the medical curriculum. I agree that the ideal way would have been for the medical profession in this country to bring it within their curriculum. Then, people who showed special skill in that direction could have specialised in that branch of the healing art, and we should have had the benefit of fully qualified men, able to administer this branch of service. But the medical profession declined to do that. Why, I do not know. Because they declined to do it, is our country to lose the benefit of that service?
One does not care much about quoting from one's own experience, but here are some simple, everyday cases which tend to prove my argument. What about tennis elbow? I do not know whether many hon. Members suffer from tennis elbow. The fact is, that when you have tennis elbow it totally prevents you from playing the game. I suffered from it and consulted doctors, who pulled long faces and talked about resting the elbow for a couple of years. I went to an osteopath and after two interviews, lasting a few minutes, I was absolutely cured, and have never been troubled since. Take the complaint of hay fever. That is a very objectionable condition without being a serious complaint. It is objectionable enough to make one's summer a misery instead of a joy. The summer before last I suffered from it. I forget how many doctors I saw, I certainly saw one of the most eminent people in London, but not one could do me any good. Then I went to one of the most eminent osteopaths, and within a week I was perfectly well. What is the use of telling me that these people cannot do one any good, or that they are people who ought to be suppressed.
There are three or four propositions which I want to advance. The first proposition is, that there is a place for this branch of skill in the healing art. I am certain that no one in his heart of hearts can deny that. We must all know of cases where the value of this skill has been demonstrated. Secondly, I say that the doctors know it themselves. Within the last three days I have come across two instances showing that the doctors
do know of the value of this class of service. One case was that of a lady who was apparently dying. The doctor in charge of the case was at his wit's end. He frankly said, "I can do no more." But he had the courage to advise the relatives to send for an osteopath. He said, "For God's sake, do not say that I sent you there; do not let anyone know. Of course, I cannot meet him." The osteopath came, and he cured the patient. She owes her life, not merely to the skill of the osteopath, but to the courage and honesty of that doctor. Another case was that of a girl who fell and injured her knee. She was taken to a very eminent doctor who, after a time, advised her father to go to an osteopath. He, too, said, "Do not say a word about my having sent you there. Do not give me away." The osteopath was consulted and the child was cured. There, again, is an illustration that the doctors know that these osteopaths know a good deal more than they do about certain branches of their profession.
A good deal has been said about those who are not qualified, and who are charlatans. Whose fault is it that they are able to deceive the public? It is not the fault of the qualified osteopaths. It is the fault of the medical profession, who have always withstood the registration of the competent. A registration of the competent earmarks at the same time the incompetent. That is the inevitable result, when the medical profession will not fix a standard and give some distinction to people who obtain that standard of skill. In other branches of service, such as the Bar, solicitors, accountants, dentists, a standard is fixed and people who are able to reach that standard are given some distinctive title, of registration or otherwise, so that the world knows that they are, as far as training goes, competent, and that the others are not. If you choose to go to an accountant rather than a chartered accountant, you do so at your own risk. If in this case there were a register of the competent, and you chose to go to the incompetent, you would have nobody but yourself to blame. The fact that there are so many unqualified people purporting to practice is not the fault of the qualified men, but the fault of the profession of which my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution is so distinguished an ornament.
One further proposition. It is intolerable that first-class men, men of the greatest proved ability, should have to carry on their work in such a precarious position. One illustration which puts in a nut-shell what I mean, might be quoted. One of the most eminent of these osteopaths told me the other day that he had been sent for to see a lady who had been attended by two doctors. She was apparently dying of some form of anæmia, and they had told her that they could do nothing more for her. As a last resort the osteopath was sent for. When he got there the two doctors met him. They said that if he took up the case and the patient died, they would do their level best to make it as awkward for him as possible. The osteopath had the courage to take up the case and succeeded in saving the woman's life, and he regarded it as one of his greatest achievements. But is it right that a man should be in that intolerable position, that if perchance things go wrong, that if he does not succeed he should run the risk of the coroner being informed that the patient had been attended by a quack, and that the coroner should be free to say disagreeable things about the matter? It is a horrible position for an eminent man to be placed in. If such men were registered, that sort of thing could not be said. My own view is that no staff of a hospital is complete without a qualified osteopath. The mere idea of a hospital, say for crippled children, without an osteopath, is an absurdity. I ask the House to recognise these men, to use them and to help them.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish, first of all, to apologise for the fact that the Amendment is in manuscript, and that, therefore, until it was so clearly read to the House by the Mover, hon. Members had not an opportunity of knowing its terms. I am sure that if time had permitted us to place it on the Order Paper, the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who seconded the Motion, would have been in my place seconding the Amendment. I notice that practically the whole of his speech was directed to the urgent necessity of separating the wheat from the chaff, of protecting the public from unqualified persons and the whole object of the
Amendment is to enable the public to know the qualified man, to set up a registry and a standard as high, if necessary—I think it is necessary—as that in operation now in the orthodox medical profession, for those persons who are permitted to practise the art of manipulative surgery. I will use the term of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment—manipulative practitioner. It covers the whole of those somewhat obscure titles, osteopaths and cheiropractors and the like.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It includes nurses, too.

Mr. PETO: We do not care in this country for the somewhat abstruse terms which are in favour in other countries. "Cheirapractic" is "manipulative practitioner" in Greek. I prefer English, or the nearest approach to it that- I can get, and that is the reason why my hon. and learned Friend has put it in that form. I noticed in the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Motion that he mentioned the terrible state of affairs in hospitals in the East End disclosed by the work of unqualified people. He said that a dentist who was a quack did all sorts of mischief to the patients. What is the moral to be drawn from that? We have dealt with the question of the dentist who is a quack by passing the Dentists Act. What the Mover of the Amendment is asking is that in precisely the same way these manipulative practitioners should be registered people, when they have a qualification, and that those who have not a qualification should not be allowed to practise.
Undoubtedly the osteopath or manipulative practitioner is just as anxious for and just as much in need of what my hon. and learned Friend proposes as is the public. It is in their interests that we should have a standard of practice in that branch of the healing art, and it is no use anyone coming to this House at this time of day and saying that they ought to be included with herbalists and Christian Scientists and other quacks. The time for that has passed. The Mover of the Motion recognised it. Although his Motion is cer, tainly not couched in terms intended, to say the least, to be complimentary to
manipulative practitioners, yet he speaks in the very first words of his Motion of his desire to call attention to the spread of this practice. Things do not spread unless there is a demand for them; they do not spread unless they have proved successful. It is now apparent to us that what my hon. Friend really wants is not the setting up of an impartial Committee to inquire into this question in the public interests, but that he should have a species of inquisition into this irregular practice. What is desired, I believe, is that this inquisition should be able to pronounce a sort of ex cathedra anathema against the whole of these people, including Sir Herbert Barker.

Dr. LITTLE: My words cannot convey that meaning.

Mr. PETO: The Motion refers to "the spread of unqualified practice" by these people "and other irregular practitioners." I think I was not overstating the case in pointing out that what was really desired was that this unauthorised and unorthodox practice should cease. That is the meaning of the Motion. Of course, if my hon. Friend says that that is not his meaning, I accept his explanation. In his speech he mentioned the various pains and penalties which unqualified practitioners incurred in other countries. The one point at which he waxed really enthusiastic was when he mentioned Brazil, where solitary confinement was the fate of any person who dared to practise outside the orthodox trade union of the medical practitioner. I think I am not overstating my case in saying that my hon. Friend really would not very much mind, or, rather, that the effect of his Motion would certainly be, if it were carried out—the result of this inquisition would be a sort of auto da fé of the whole lot of these people who trench on the rights of the orthodox practitioner. I think I am justified in referring to one more matter which the hon. Member mentioned. He said that the secrecy of method practised by these people was one of the things to which he strongly objected. I hope the House will permit me to read, on that, what Mr. Barker, now Sir Herbert. Barker, put before the country during the War in 1917. It is very apposite on this question of secrecy and what these practitioners really desire. He said:
I have repeatedly asked for a fair hearing and impartial investigation of my
methods. I am perfectly willing to operate before a body of surgeons, acknowledged to be representative of the highest surgical skill, upon a number of cases I profess to deal with selected by themselves. I only stipulate that each case should have absolutely refused to respond to other treatment.
Then he says further:
Should I succeed in demonstrating the worth of the methods I employ, I would ask to be allowed to treat gratuitously poor persons at a metropolitan hospital on one day a week, before students and surgeons, and give them an opportunity of acquiring a practical knowledge of psycho-therapeutics.
He offered, if he was allowed to practise, to give anybody the full power of learning from him all he knew. To characterise people of that sort as those who pursue secretive methods is hardly fair.
I look at this matter in a broader aspect. What we all want is that humanity should have every advantage which it can have from all fresh discoveries in the art of healing, and I think it is notable that nearly all the great discoveries in the art of healing have come from outside the orthodox medical profession [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can quote chapter and verse to show that five, at any rate, of the greatest discoveries of this kind came from outside the orthodox medical profession. Cinchona, or quinine, was introduced into this country by a Jesuit priest, who discovered it in South America from the Indians, among whom the merits of this particular drug were first ascertained. Ether, as an anæsthetic, was first administered by an unqualified person. Pasteur was refused a hearing by leading physicians because he had not a degree. Harvey, who discovered the circulation of the blood, was ridiculed as a "circulator" and a quack; and Lister was scoffed at because he advocated the employment of anæsthetics. After that it would be very foolish in this year 1926 to close our eyes to the fact that the last word in the art of healing has not been said.
What we want is an enquiry into manipulative practice, so that the whole thing may be sifted out and settled as to the basis on which it can be legally registered and recognised in this country in order that those who are qualified to practise may be separated from those who are not so qualified. Therefore, as regards the present position of the Amendment and
the Motion, I should cordially agree with any inquiries provided that it is directed towards giving people any effective treatment which is available for the ills to which we are all liable and which is likely to help them to healthier lives. We do not want to shut our eyes to the facts. We passed an Act in 1859 giving a certain body the direction of the medical profession, with very autocratic powers by which they are enabled to characterise anybody with whom they do not agree as being guilty of infamous conduct and, as in the case of Dr. Axham, to pursue that vindictive sentence right to the time when a man has almost one foot in the grave. I say the time has come for an inquiry into this matter, and it should no longer be a crime to help suffering humanity by administering anæsthetics for a man like Sir Herbert Barker, who has made more cures than can be laid to the door of any orthodox surgeon in this country.

10.0 P.M.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I have a little difficulty in regard to the Motion which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Dr. Little). There has been for some time past a good deal of criticism of the medical profession on various grounds and we must take it that my hon. Friend's Motion to-night is what military men in the House will recognise as a sort of offensive-defensive. Whether that is good tactics or not is another matter, but at least, it shows courage. In regard to the actual terms of the Motion I do not feel that an inquiry such as he desires is necessary at the present time. At the same time I believe that in the public interest observation requires to be kept on unqualified practice. If I am not entirely in favour of the Motion, still more do I disagree with the terms of the Amendment. We may grant at once that the future and progress of the medical profession, if not dependent upon, is helped by a certain amount of unorthodox thought and even of unorthodox practice. There is no doubt also, that there have been considerable contributions to medical progress from certain people who were outside of it. There is, however, a definite limit to the extent to which legal sanction should be given to unqualified persons, and that limit, certainly, is the safety of the public.
There are two main classes of unqualified practice? We have one class which depends on physical means, and a second large class where you have the mental or spiritual or psycho-therapeutic class of treatment. Bone-setting has been mentioned. In practically every little village and town in the country there are bone-setters who are in the habit of attending to sprains, joint injuries, and things of that sort. They are very often humble and uneducated people who may have a local reputation. We have had our attention called to-night to the case of Sir Herbert Barker, who has a national reputation, and I think most of us are ready to admit that he is a man of exceptional ability. I think the medical profession generally would be prepared to admit that he is a man who has done considerable service and is a practitioner of no mean skill. But his is a very exceptional case. What is the medical profession to do in the case of a man even as eminent as Sir Herbert Barker? After all, bone-setting and dealing with joints and ligaments are only a small part of the practice of medicine and surgery. It will be admitted that a general diploma is quite impossible in a case like that, giving a person legal authority to treat diseases of all kinds. No case has been made out, either, for a limited diploma which would confine itself within the qualifications of men like Sir Herbert Barker. I, therefore, think a good deal of the criticism of the medical profession in that connection is really unjustifiable, as they could not treat him, within the limit of their statutes, differently from his less distinguished co-workers.
Then we come to osteopathy, which, of course, is quite a different thing from bonesetting, although Sir Herbert Barker has lately become associated, as far as sympathy is concerned, with osteopathic ideas. Osteopathy was the invention of Dr. Still of the State of Kansas in America. He took a great part in the anti-slavery agitation, became rather unsettled, and never again reverted to the ordinary practice of his profession. He was said to have been given a vision in which he was told that the slaves having been freed it was now his duty to set about the great task of freeing humanity from the thraldom of
the use of liquor and the use of drugs. It is interesting to note that while Dr. Still is associated mostly with osteopathy it could be claimed that he was the first inspirer of the movement which has ended in prohibition in America. On contemplating his great task, he came to the conclusion that, as human beings were anatomically designed for perfect health, any deviation from perfect health must be due to some anatomical defect. Working from that assumption he developed his system of osteopathy. He went on a tour through Missouri, preaching his gospel in the villages, and ultimately settled down in Kirksville.
It is a remarkable fact that he did not make a great deal of progress until something happened. He was joined by a Scotsman, a Dr. Smith; and if this is really a great revelation to humanity, then I am proud to think that my country is to be associated with it. Kirksville became the headquarters of osteopathy, and to-day there is a very large college there turning out many graduates. The original ideas which have been described by the hon. and learned Member for London University have been modified to a considerable extent in later years, and it is interesting to find that there has been, even among osteopaths, a very distinct approach to orthodoxy. In Kirksville the study of bacteriology, chemical and microscopic diagnoses, general surgery, and blood tests, are carried on. We are told somefunes that this is done in order to comply with the State Regulation required before a certificate can be given; but they do not deny the usefulness of these things.
I think the point that is not generally understood as to the position of the medical profession is this. The medical proffession do not object to osteopathy practice. They have no objection to osteopathy being developed. All that we say is that before any man or woman gets a legal qualification to practice medicine or surgery, or any system of medicine or surgery, in this country he should have a definite minimum of fundamental knowledge which is essential for the practice of any system of medicine or surgery.
We are dealing with the human body, and, surely, a complete knowledge of the
human body is absolutely necessary for any system. He must, therefore, be taught anatomy. He must know how the body works, so has to study physiology. He should also learn the effect that diseases have on the organs of the body, so he must be taught pathology. It is also desirable that the practitioner should be aware of the effect of certain chemicals on the body and the various reactions which take place. We simply claim that the present medical curriculum gives the minimum which is necessary for the practice of any system of medicine. We do not care whether the man becomes a bone-setter or an osteopath or any other kind of path. We say that we must, in the interests of the general public, have a minimum which at present we believe osteopathic colleges do not give. Then we have this curious position. Osteopaths again say "We come in the interests of the general public, because there are those who speak in our name, but who do not practise our faith as it should be practised." One of the students of Dr. Still, a Mr. Palmer, went out on his own and started another college which is now in Davenport in Iowa. There are held classes of as many as 600 students, who are being taught chiropractic, which is the crudest system of osteopathy, and which has the objection able feature that advertising is a subject in the curriculum. There a student, after 18 months' training, with no preliminary educational qualification at all, can become a D.C., or Doctor of Chiropractic. With another six months' training they can become actually Philosophers of Chiropractic, Ph.C.
It is obvious that as osteopaths claim that the public have to be protected from those who are practising their own art in an inferior way, there is no end to this sort of thing if once you start it. Surely our position is a very reasonable one, that the minimum, which, I think, on consideration, everyone will agree is not too low, must be maintained. Then, again, we have various other people whom I do not object to so much, herbalists and naturopaths, who often work on the system of giving people a vegetarian diet, simple drugs, and exercise, which does good in many cases. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment gave examples of a number of cures which had been effected by osteopaths. I do not care
what system of medicine you take or what system of quackery you take, you can get a list of wonderful cures in any one of them. Some of the most remarkable cases I know of wonderful cures have been in connection with Christian Science which I have seen myself and know. There is no use in giving a list of cures and saying that it proves that the system is a good one. As a matter of fact, I can bring a list of cases of osteopaths and bone-setters, where the results have been disastrous, cases both in this country and in America.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: And also cases of qualified men.

Dr. SHIELS: Yes. We must agree, of course, that doctors make mistakes, and it is true that we cannot prevent that, but what we are entitled to do, as a community and as a House, is to see that at least we absolve ourselves from the responsibility for these mistakes by ensuring that everyone practising medicine and surgery in this country has a minimum qualification of fundamental knowledge. In regard to other classes of unqualified practitioners, I have mentioned Christian Science. That is a very difficult matter to discuss in a few moments, and I do not know that it is desirable to develop it, because it has not been touched upon much to-night. But as I have said, wonderful cures are effected, and yet the law at present condemns such treatment. Prosecutions are actually taking place in that connection.
I think the position of the medical profession, while it may be criticised, is a perfectly sound one. We hear a great deal about the General Medical Council. It must be remembered that when the General Medical Council was instituted there was very little knowledge of public health in the country. Nowadays everyone has a smattering of health knowledge and even a certain amount of technical knowledge. It is a remarkable fact, therefore, not that the General Medical Council has been so much criticised, but that, on the whole, it has emerged from the criticism so successfully. The General Medical Council has probably suffered from a lack of publicity and a lack of complete information as to its doings. There is no doubt that it gives a very much fairer trial, in its penal cases, and
a very much more careful trial than the general public have any knowledge of. It is no pleasure to the members of the General Medical Council to score any man off the register, and it is only done when that is in the public interest.
The General Medical Council is a body which is set up purely to look at the profession from the point of view of the public interest, though it is often confused with a body which is working for the interests of the actual members of the profession—the British Medical Association. The General Medical Council has no relation with that at all. I do not want to take up any more time, because there are other speakers, but I hope that I have said sufficient to show that while, as I say, we welcome as much freedom as is consistent with the public interest, we do not think it desirable to menace the public safety by accepting the principle which has been put forward in the Amendment.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I can support neither the Resolution nor the Amendment, and I do not want myself to institute anything in 'the nature of a heresy hunt among unqualified practitioners, because everybody knows that there are people who do not call themselves by such classical words as osteopaths and other kinds of paths, but who probably merely call themselves bone-setters, who do effect cures of strained joints and ligaments which somehow or other the ordinary practitioner is unable to accomplish.
Why, I do not know, but I think the last speaker, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) began to get somewhere near the point, and I want to suggest that a good deal of the public unrest about this matter, which certainly does exist, has been because the public has lost faith in the General Medical Council. I am going, if I may, to make a suggestion to my hon. Friends who have put forward this Motion, something which will at any rate help the public to regain confidence in the General Medical Council, which has been so severely strained. That Council was set up by the Medical Council Act, and was to consist of 22 representatives of universities and other bodies which grant degrees and qualifying certificates for medical practice. It was to consist of five elected general practitioners, and there were
also to he—and this I ask the House to note—five persons to be nominated by the Lord President of the Council, and those five, in my view of the matter, ought not to have been five doctors; they ought to have been five laymen.
It was intended that the public should be represented upon this General Medical Council by persons of eminence, persons with a judicial training, who could protect both the public and the humbler members of the profession from anything in the nature of victimisation. What has happened has been that the General Medical Council has become something very like the executive of a trade union, and it has acted in uhat I might call the trade union interest of its members, instead of entirely in the interest of the public. My suggestion—and it is all I rose to make—is that the Minister of Health shall use his influence or his power to place the General Medical Council in the position which, I am sure, it was intended to occupy, that is to say, that it was to consist mainly of medical men, but it was to contain a lay element which should represent specially the interest of the public, and prevent it from becoming merely a narrow-minded professional body.

Mr. BROMLEY: It is with some trepidation that I, a layman, rise to take part in this Debate, but it is chiefly because I fear, from the very innocuous appearance of the Resolution, that it is a heresy hunt., and we must protect the community, whatever respect we have for the medical profession, against the possibility of harm being done to human beings as the result of a heresy hunt. I want to speak with very great respect of the medical fraternity. It is a profession I hold in very high esteem, probably because I have not had to trouble them professionally very much; but we do recognise the sacrifices that the medical profession make in giving their skill free to suffering humanity. We realise some of the terrible happenings they have brought upon themselves with "X" rays and other things, all in the interest of the community. But we also see a danger of their very enthusiasm for their profession running away with them. I would respect this Motion, and all that it may imply, from the trade union standpoint which has been mentioned, although I am afraid the medical profession would
not be so enthusiastic in supporting me if I were sticking up for engine-drivers, for instance. The engine-driver, if he makes a mistake, suffers for it. If the solicitor makes a mistake he charges for it. If the doctor makes a mistake he buries it.
What I want to bring to the notice of the House is the fact that some of us who have been workers for very many years in our trade unions do know the splendid nature of the healing that has been done, of relief to cripples, and the suffering which has been eased or prevented by manipulative surgery, and by other than the orthodox practices of medicine. I rather fear from recent happenings which have been mentioned by previous speakers, and which I have no intention, therefore, of enlarging upon, that this chasing from the field of curing and healing of all that are not able to produce certain qualifications is not to the good. Even after Sir Herbert Barker has received knighthood at the hands of His Majesty, the doctor assisting him has still to be hounded into a very serious position. I want to say on behalf of the workmen that it is very much to his advantage and very much to his easement that it is possible for him to have manipulative surgery.
I want to appeal to the House not to support the Resolution because of the possibility of danger to the lay-mind, and of its being over-ridden by the Latin jargon of the medical profession. In looking back over history we note that even the strong views of the medical fraternity have changed from time to time. They are now horrified at the osteopath rising and of manipulative surgery. They are clinging to previous ideas. A few years ago it was all blood-letting for everything. That has been dismissed by the medical men. It will not require an ignoramous like myself to remind them how Dr. Simpson, of Edinburgh, when he first began to study the science of obstetrics was rather reviled by his own profession. Dr. Simpson has now been admitted to be right and his life's work is a memorial to his memory. He was a very clever member of his profession. He suffered exactly the same revilement—not the same persecution—in his early days of study as manipulative surgeons of to-day are suffering at the hands of the medical profession. Yet Simpson was a man sufficiently far-seeing and courageous
to be the first to experiment on himself and discover the effectiveness of chloroform as an anæsthetic.
Coming down to the present day we find other professions or other branches of the profession—a very valuable profession—I would be the last to wish to under-rate the medical authorities—but I suggest to the house that, however much respect and admiration we may have for them, we ought certainly in the light of history—and very recent history in the case of Sir Herbert Barker and another man, with somewhat approaching the same skill, Mr. Kinnaird, whose good work many of us in the trade union movement know and recognise—consider these things. There is a danger of us being led away, by the insistence of the medical fraternity for the protection of their craft, to do an injustice. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution did not exactly explain what it means. I suspect behind it is the intention to drive out practically everyone who does not conform to a certain professional standard.
If it were the question of the mere quack, the quack who secretly gets at people who are suffering from very serious diseases and sells them all manner of nostrums that are supposed to cure everything, from sore eyes to wooden legs, I do not think there is a person in the House who would not support that for a moment. I think those people ought to have been dealt with much more severely years ago. They are not dealt with sufficiently severely to-day. Here, however, are people who do not deal with bacteriological disease, I understand, but with manipulative surgery of the bone, or muscle, or nerve, and I think they ought to have an opportunity of proving their curative skill, as apparently they have begun to do. On behalf of working people who have suffered and who have been cured and eased by these very people, I appeal to the House to consider seriously what they are doing before supporting the Motion.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Before this Debate comes to a close, I think the House would probably desire that, as the Minister responsible for the public health, I should say a few words on the subject of this Motion. The Motion was presented by the hon. Member for the University of
London (Dr. Little) with a great deal of learning and a great deal of sound argument, and he was reinforced, somewhat unexpectedly and very powerfully, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), whom I do not now see in his place. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me, as the "general of the army," he said, to see that the forces which I command are kept in a proper state of efficiency and discipline. I think he was forgetting that the forces which were being criticised by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion are not my forces at all. They are irregular troops. They may have, of their own accord, embarked alongside of the regular troops, and the question really is whether their aim is sufficiently well established to make it desirable that we should use them, or whether we are to say that these irregular troops—some of them, at any rate—are likely to do more harm than good, on the whole, and that therefore we prefer to do without them altogether.
I do not think it can be denied that there are dangers in unqualified practice, dangers of two kinds. There is the positive danger that actual harm may be done by the practitioner—I am not speaking merely of osteopaths or cheiropractors, but all kinds of unqualified practitioners—by too violent treatment or by the administration of harmful drugs. On the other hand, there is a sort of indirect harm that may be done by inducing the patient not to seek qualified assistance, consequently postponing application to a man who really could cure him until, perhaps, the disease has gone so far that it is too late. Those are the dangers in unqualified practice. The hon. Member for the University of London has told us that in many other parts of the world unqualified practice is totally prohibited. Is that what he wants? May I take it, although the Resolution is rather carefully worded, that we are to read into it that he desires to see all unqualified practice totally prohibited?
When we come to consider whether that is desirable or not, one must take account of the fact that education is continually growing in this country, and that with the growth of education and general intelligence the tendency of people to go to those who really are not
sufficiently skilful to be able to treat their cases grows less and less. It is always among the most ignorant that you will find recourse to the most crude and unskilled kind of treatment. Therefore I do not think there is the danger in this country that might exist in a country less civilised amongst people less educated. Really the discussion has ranged around particular practices which were called by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) those of manipulative practitioners.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave a number of instances of remarkable cures that had been effected by these particular practices, and he said that he went to an osteopath and he was completely cured of tennis elbow. I congratulate him, but he must not draw too large a conclusion from that fact. I had myself tennis elbow, and I was completely cured, and I did not go to anybody, but it would not be safe to draw the conclusion from that fact that every disease would cure itself. Nevertheless I admit that there are cases of particular practitioners where undoubtedly valuable public service has been done, and where cures have been effected by special manipulative skill in cases where the most skilful ordinary practitioners have not succeeded in making a cure. I agree with the argument that we do not want to cut ourselves off from being able to take advantage of the skill of any man, qualified or unqualified, if it is distinctly understood that anyone who goes to an unqualified man goes at his own risk, and is prepared to take the consequences. That being so I could not advise the House to accept the Motion which stands upon the Paper.
I must now come to the Amendment, and I find it equally difficult to recommen the House to adopt it. What does the Amendment mean? Here, again, I am going to give my own interpretation of it. It means that not only should osteopaths be permitted to practice in this country, but that they should be recognised and that they should be registered. That is to say, they should be given what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich calls a Government guarantee, and it means that they should have some sort of official status which would undoubtedly lead to a very much larger resort on the part of the
public to such treatment. The Amendment reads:
to secure the recognition and registration of manipulate practitioners having approved qualifications.
The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment said very little about that part of it, and, indeed, in referring to it, it was very significant that he did not use those words, but spoke of the people who had "approved skill" and not "approved qualifications." Those are quite different things. Apparently what he was thinking of was that he was prepared to register those who had approved skill. How are you to register those who have approved skill? What board can assess or measure it, or lay down rules for the tests which are to be applied before you can set up a register? In practice the thing breaks down at once. There is no measure that you can apply; there are no qualifications by which any board can distinguish between osteopaths and enable them to be put upon a separate register. You would be put in this position, that you would have to fall back upon the diplomas which have been given by American colleges, over whose curricula no body in this country has any control whatsoever. I think the House will agree that to ask us in this country to accept diplomas from another country, into the value of which we really could not pretend to examine, and over the qualifications for which we have no control, is really not a practical proposition.

Mr. B. PETO: If my right hon. Friend will excuse my interrupting him for one moment, it is hardly fair to say that we are asking that American degrees in osteopathy should be recognised in this country. The British Osteopathic Association wish to set up their own college, with their own course of training, and to give their own degree to British subjects, and stop the importation of American practitioners.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was coming to that point, but I want to say first that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment was quite mistaken in saying that the practice of osteopathy—or manipulative surgery, as I would prefer to call it—ought to be, but was not, a part of the present medical curriculum in this country. That is quite a mistake! As a matter of
fact, the subject is taught in the medical schools under the curriculum of the General Medical Council, and the General Medical Council is the body to which is entrusted the curriculum for medical education in this country. There is no reason why any properly qualified medical man, should not specialise, if he likes, in osteopathy, and, as a matter of fact, some of the most celebrated in this country have done so. They are properly qualified, and they specialise in this particular branch. There is no reason why that should not go further.
My hon. Friend says it is not fair to suggest that they are asking that diplomas of American Colleges should be recognised. I am glad to hear that they do not ask that. I certainly thought that some, at any rate, who desire registration did desire that these diplomas should be recognised, and that request has before now come before me officially. My hon. Friend asks why the osteopaths in this country should not set up their own colleges with their own diplomas. Why, indeed? I know of no reason to stop them, and it seems to me that that is the only way in which they can achieve what they desire. If they want to have a register of osteopaths set up in this country, the first thing for them to do is to start colleges of their own. Let them do so; let them give these diplomas. They will be forced eventually, I prophesy, to do what has been done in America, and what the hon. Member who moved the. Motion said they were doing there; that is to say, their curriculum would gradually have to conform to something very nearly approaching the normal curriculum in this country. The more that is the case, the more easy it will be to form a register, if they still desire to form one.
I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I myself cannot vote either for the Motion or for the Amendment, and I hope that, from the account I have given to the House of how this matter appears to me, my hon. Friends will see that it is really very difficult for one to give a vote upon this matter in the present state of knowledge and discussion. I have tried to indicate the direction in which I think progress can be made by those who favour further encouragement for what is called osteopathy. I do not think it is necessary to prohibit, and I do not think public
opinion will be in favour of prohibiting, unqualified practice, but, on the other hand, the other proposal seems to me to be practically impossible of achievement. On the whole, therefore, I think my hon. Friends will do best to leave things to develop in their own natural, normal fashion.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is now quite clear that this is not a subject which should be left exclusively to those who are interested in medicine and surgery. Nothing has been said, of any moment, at any rate, as far as I remember—and I have listened to most of the Debate—regarding the powers of the General Medical Council. The Debate has ranged over a very wide area indeed, and my objection, both to the Resolution and to the Amendment, is that neither of them deals with what is fundamental in an issue of this kind. The community as a whole, I feel sure, if they knew the whole of the facts, as some of us do, would object to the present wide powers of the General Medical Council, and I am certain would object to giving them any more powers. In fact, the General Medical Council, so far as a layman can understand its functions, is a law unto itself, a Court and a magistracy all on its own account. There is no appeal whatever from its decisions, and I suggest that when a subject of this kind comes under discussion again the Minister of Health should inquire as to whether some lay representative should not sit on the General Medical Council instead of allowing all the power to remain with the representatives now dominating that body.
The other observation I desire to make is this. I dislike the Resolution because it presumes the infallability of a man merely because he has qualified by education through colleges and otherwise. We on these benches know full well that In Workmen's Compensation cases, when one doctor is engaged by the employer and another by the worlunan, they somehow or other differ on specific cases; and you get an opinion from one fully qualified man in a given case quite contrary to that given by the other. During the last year or so, so unsatisfactory was the certification of the paned doctors wilder the National Health Insurance Scheme that the Ministry of Health was compelled to
set up what are called degional Medical Officers to give a second opinion to that given by the panel doctors themselves should not like to be too critical of what is undoubtedly a very honourable profession; but I am sure it is not correct to presume that merely because men have passed through six years' training in a medical college, they are to be the only persons to practice medicine and to be deemed infallible in the way suggested by the Resolution. To emphasise the point that has been made, that nearly all innovations in connection with medicine and surgery have come from outside the medical profession, I need hardly give the classic case of vaccination. 40 or 50 years ago almost every medical man in the land declared that vaccination meant the sure prevention of small-pox. There are hundreds of qualified men to-day who would probably dispute a statement of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] It just shows the Conservative nature of the medical profession.
A statement was made to-night from more than one side of the House that it was not correct to declare that the medical profession was a Conservative profession and that men have instituted ideas from outside the profession. I have looked up a case uhich I feel sure will not only satisfy the House that that is so in relation to cases submitted by my hon. Friend below the Gangway; but I have turned up the history of Charles Darwin himself, who I understand has contributed more to this realm of science than any other Englishman. His brother said of Charles Darwin, she author of the "Origin of Species": "He went to Edinburgh in 1825 to prepare for the medical profession for which he was totally unfitted by nature." I venture to say that the General Medical Council, if Charles Darwin was alive to-day, would deem him to be an incompetent and unqualified medical man. It would not allow him to join the profession at all. In fact, there are cases over and over again where men outside the profession have achieved results, which the profession itself has been unable to produce.
I am not challenging the honour or the capacity of the medical profession to do their work. What I am challenging is the organisation that they have set up in order to provide a status for the profession which I am not sure it always justifies. I feel sure the community as
a whole is becoming a little apprehensive of the power of the medical profession in its organisation. I trust the Minister of Health will bear in mind the suggestion I have made that whenever the General Medical Council comes under his purview, and if a change has to be made, he will make a change in the direction of securing lay representation on that council.

Colonel SINCLAIR: As the only member of the General Medical Council in this House, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations. The General Medical Council has been blamed, not only inside the House, but outside and in the Press, for many of its decisions. I think that many who have criticised it in a hostile sense have not taken the trouble to consider its mode of procedure, how the cases come before it, and how members receive and weigh the evidence and eerie to a decision. Moreover, its clemency is much greater than many Members of the House understand. Many of those who are deprived of diplomas are only deprived for one year or thereabouts, and, if not guilty of the offence again, they are reinstated in many cases within the year.
The General Medical Council does not proceed against osteopaths and cheiropractors. It really cannot recognise them, because it has no means of inspecting their skill. It has no means of understanding or estimating the nature of the education furnished or the standards of education and examinations which they take. It would not be in the public interests to take the American diplomas at their face value. Many of these are granted by organisations some of which are of a proprietary nature and are not recognised in the United States. It would be hazardous to include all these practitioners in the general register unless there was some provision made for inspecting the colleges, the nature of the instruction given, and of the examination passed.
In the case of dentists, when the country some years ago was flooded by a large number of unqualified men, the Dental Act of 1921 was passed for the protection of the public. It was then made, with great severity, a penal offence to practise dentistry unless the name of the dentist was on the dental register. Therefore, it appears to me to be right in the public interest that there should be an inquiry respecting the persons entitled
to practise medicine and surgery, including manipulative surgery and plastic surgery, lest great damage should be done to the suffering public by unqualified people carrying out manipulative surgery with great energy and even rough handling. Practitioners who desire to practise manipulative surgery should provide a guarantee that they have been properly instructed in the anatomy of the human body, physiology and pathology, so that they would be able to distinguish those patients to whom they ought not to apply manipulative surgery, and who ought to be treated by other means. It ought to be borne in mind that the General Medical Council does not put a veto on the class of practice which its registered members may adopt. All that it requires is that they shall have been trained in medicine, surgery and midwifery. They may practise manipulative surgery, homeopathy or other forms of service provided they show that they have graduated at some recognised institution, and that they have a thorough knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathology.
The General Medical Council is a much maligned body. It has been suggested that it ought to be reinforced by the addition of lay members. We have no objection to the addition of lay members. The machinery exists already for their introduction. If the Privy Council would use its power of nomination for the purpose of placing lay members on the General Medical Council, it is quite within its competence to do so. Moreover, the Universities of the Kingdom might send lay professors to the Council instead of medical members. That is within their competence. The difficulty is that people cannot be got to take an intelligent interest in the work of the General Medical Council unless they are medical men, because three-fourths of the work of the Council has to do with medical education and registration. It is difficult for the laity really to understand and to keep a sustained interest in the regulations of the medical curricula and the medical examinations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Time is up!

Colonel SINCLAIR: Much has been said with respect to the cures effected by the bone setters. I do not deny that they have effected these cures. [Interruption.] I think it is hardly fair to the general medical profession to say—
[Interruption]—I do not deny that the manipulative surgeons have done good work, but the general medical profession have done equally good work.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Colonel SINCLAIR: It is not fair to say—

It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS I.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to His Majesty,
to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health).

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.